Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.2 ApplicationSTAT ;!!�• ORADO Roy Romer, Governor Patti Shwayder, Acting Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 March 16, 1995 Laboratory Building 4210 E. 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 (303) 691-4700 Ms Barbara L. Pavlik Department of Natural Resources Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman St. Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RE: of the people of C do !Aja. 20 C:�H�-t, t D CCs11'd 'y Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Eastside Mine - Eastside Coal Company CDPS Permit No. CO -850019; MLRB Permit No. C-84-063 Garfield County Dear Ms Pavlik: The Water Quality Control Division has received your notification of Eastside Coals intent to dispose of waste underground and to seal the tunnel at the Eastside Mine. As we discussed, the Division is concerned with the plugging of the tunnel. We wish to ensure that there will not be any impacts to the water quality in the area as a result of the plugging or a change in the discharge from the mine as a result of the waste disposal. Therefore, we are requesting a copy of the Technical Revision No. 11. It is hoped that this would contain hydrologic/hydrochemical information. Once we review this information we may wish to offer comments on the TR. I appreciate your assistance on this. Please contact me at 692-3608 with any questions. Sincerely, Patricia A. Nelson, P.E., Chief Industrial Permits and Enforcement Program Permits and Enforcement Section WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION cc- Dwain Watson.Field Support Section. WQCD Local Health Department MS -3 Permit File EASTSIDE.WPD ABR4) Mar• 15, 1995 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 80601 Dear Commissioners: RE.. Frl!F' MAR 1 6 1995 i`•i it tia_I1 CO 44TY l'O MISS►'01£ .S Eastside Coal Company has ceased operations and have started reclaiming in the minesite in January 1995. The minesite should be regraded in April. Seeding and mulching will occur shortly after the grading is completed. The sediment pond and ditches will be removed upon obtaining approval from the Division of Minerals & Geology. This will occur once the area is revegetated and cover requirements are accomplished. Eastside Coal is requesting the Special Use Permit remain in effect until reclamation is completed. Sincerely, StepJ,te . 0 hen Sel General Manager SBS/act GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2.254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-2254 Phone 945-6111 DATE: October 12, 1994 TO: CHUCK FROM: King RE: East Side Coal Route Costs For 1st 3 -Quarters 1994 Below are time, wages, equipment costs, and invoices for work performed along the East Side Coal Route. As for documenting these costs, the time, wages, and equipment costs emanate from the employee time cards for activity spent along this route. Invoices are reflected by indicating any charges by outside vendors which also coincide with this route. Our records are available for copy should anyone request them to substantiate these costs. FORCE ACCOUNT: MAN HOURS 173 INVOICES: WAGES $ 1,838.14 EQUIP. HOURS EQUIP. COSTS 107 $ 3,352.68 EQUIPMENT RENTAL (TAMPER): $ 60.00 SEAL COAT BY GMCO: $ 33, 550.30 PAINT STRIPING BY PRO --STRIPE: $ 3,769.00 TOTAL COSTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30TH, 1994: $ 42, 379.30 '"* " WITHOUT SNOW REMOVAL ESTIMATED COSTS SIX -PERCENT (6%), OF THESE COSTS COME TO: $ 2,542.75 If you have any questions, or desire to see any paper work which substantiates these charges, please contact my office. eastsid2 ,Y4dv 79C// Jo/ GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602--2254 Phone 945-6111 DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 TO: CHUCK FROM: KING RE: EASTSIDE COAL AGREEMENT SVP 1 4 1994 6UUNTY CO t,1MISSIONLIi:, YOUR MEMO OF MARCH 16, 1994, DESIGNATES THAT THE INITIAL $2,000 THAT EASTSIDE COAL HAD IN THE COUNTY TRUST FUND BE ALLOCATED TO ROAD AND BRIDGE, AND THAT MY DEPARTMENT WOULD THEN BILL EASTSIDE COAT.. ANOTHER $2,000 BY THE END OF THE YEAR THAT WE WOULD SUPPLY EASTSIDE COAL AN ACCOUNTING OF. AS OF MAY, 1994, WE HAD SPENT APPROXIMATELY $5,200 ON THE HAUL ROUTE THAT EASTSIDE USES. WITH UPCOMING SEAL COAT AND PAINT STRIPING COSTS, LET ALONE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS ALONG THIS ROUTE, THESE COSTS COULD EXCEED $10,000 EASILY. WE ARE NOT SURE AS TO YOUR SPECIFIC AGREEMENT TERMS WITH EASTSIDE AS TO; (A) HOW MUCH TO BILL EASTSIDE (% AGAINST THE TOTAL COSTS -IF ANY HAVE BEEN STATED TO THEM), (B) WHEN TO BILL EASTSIDE, (C) HOW TO REPORT THIS BILLING TO YOU AND THE BOCC IF NECESSARY. PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS WITH THIS INFORMATION AND HE WILL PROCESS A BILLING AFTER HE RECEIVES THE INVOICES FOR SEAL COATING AND PAINT STRIPING ALONG THE GUIDELINES THAT YOU INFORM HIM OF. THANKS II a i?lild / / if 4L- A Ch47,ii” ?Z/(/ 'iri-ia 64a- 4/ .e/ ' a 12V4nel / i/(1?11:- / Zit/f/4&/ Ale/tG .1,01ilf • DAVID R. STURGES, P.C. It ATTORNEY AT LAW I. 710 COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602-0101 January 28, 1994 Mr. Mark Bean Director, Building and Planning Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Garfield County Resolution No. 93-060 Your Letter Dated December 30, 1993 Dear Mr. Bean: JAN 3 1994 CCi.ittil'Y (303) 945-5748 (303) 945-8659 (303) 945-8671 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. has requested me to respond to your letter dated December 30, 1993, which was received by them on January 5, 1994. In this letter you advise Eastside that they were "no longer in compliance" with all conditions of approval in Resolution No. 93-060, specifically to Condition E.(2.) which specified certain safety improvements (i.e., road striping and placement of lane delineators) were to be installed according to a drawing provided by Eastside in its Special Use Permit application. The language of this special condition of approval goes on to state that these safety improvements as shown on this referenced document were "as agreed [upon] by the Board of County Commissioners". The wording of this special condition of approval, unfortunately in my opinion, concludes with the phrase "subject to Road and Bridge Department Review". When such a review is to occur and the process to rectify any perceived errors either in the original design or construction of these safety improvements may be subject to differing interpretation. It has been Eastside's understanding that the actual design of these safety improvements as submitted by Eastside as a required part of their Special Use Permit Application had been reviewed and approved by the Road and Bridge Department prior to the Board's public hearings commencing on June 3, 1993 and the Board's subsequent approval of the permit in the adoption of Resolution No. 93-060. It has been our understanding that the Road and Bridge Department would make follow up site inspection determine if these improvements had been constructed according to the plan previously reviewed and approved by the Department and the Board. Eastside believes its understanding of this process and these events are legally consistent with the language of the special condition. It is my opinion that Eastside's understanding is legally consistent with the language of the condition E.(2.). 1 • • From Eastside's understanding of the facts, your letter is in error when it states that based on "[your] understanding that this design did not function and was removed by [our] contractor's personnel". Based on our discussions with Larry Hazelton, who was the project manager for Con -Sy, Inc. on this construction project, Marvin Stephens of the Road and Bridge Department on or about September 16, 1993, instructed Hazelton during a joint site visit to remove the delineators which had just been set according to the approved plan. The delineators were removed at the direction of the Road and Bridge Department and were not done voluntarily by Eastside's contractor. Neither Steve Self of Eastside Coal nor King Lloyd of the Road and Bridge Department were present at this site visit and discussion. It is my understanding that Steve Self and King Lloyd did have a follow-up visit in which the question of what further work would be acceptable to or required by Garfield County was to be examined further by County personnel and that someone from the County would get back in touch with Eastside. Your letter of notice of technical non-compliance is the first that Eastside has heard from the County concerning this matter. It appears that this matter is largely the result of poor communications. However, I do wish to have confirmed in writing that Eastside's and my understanding and opinion of the language in Condition E.(2.) is correct or that the County believes this language to authorize the Road and Bridge Department to make a field inspection and determination that a design previously reviewed and approved by them and the Board is disapproved and as such may be removed by the Department or by their order, placing the permit holder in a position of "technical non-compliance" and their special use permit subject to revocation. It would be helpful to quickly resolve how we conclude your formal letter of notice of non-compliance. I will call your office on Tuesday, February 1 to set up an appointment for Steve Self and myself to talk to you and whoever else may be appropriate from the County. Sincerely yours, �Jk David R. Sts, P. cc: Steve Self Don DeFord King Lloyd 2 • GARFIELD COUNTY • BUILDING AND PLANNING August 4, 1993 Stephen Self Eastside Coal Company, Inc. P.O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 RE: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Resolution No. 93-060 Dear Mr. Self: Resolution No. 93-060 states the conditions of approval and that the clarification of any language can only be done during a public hearing if necessary. These issues were discussed at the hearing and the language in the Resolution was consistent with the directions of the Board. Also, enclosed is a copy of the receipt from the County Treasurer noting receipt of the $2,000.00 required by the Resolution and the account established as required. I will attempt to notify you of when the Road & Bridge Department has submitted their plans and budget to the Board, but I cannot guarantee any timeframe. In terns of your last paragraph in your letter of July 29, 1993, this letter does not agree or disagree with any statements you made in the letter. If you have any further questions, you may call or write this office. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Regulatory Offices and Personnel MLB/sa Enclosure 109 8TFI STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 July 29, 1993 Board of County Commissioners 901 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attention: Mark Bean Re: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Resolution No. 93-060 Dear Commissioners and Mark: R C 7' Aar) JUL 1993 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Pursuant to the requirement of Section 2.F. of the above captioned resolution, enclosed is Eastside's check payable to Garfield County Road and Bridge Fund in the amount of $2,000.00. It is our understanding that the emergency plan required by Section 2.I. has already been received by the County. With these specific conditions now being met, Eastside respectfully requests that the Special Use Permit be issued as soon as possible. We have reviewed the language of this final and executed resolution when it was released to us on July 14th. Some wording changes were made to the draft resolution following our hearings on June 7th and July 6th which have raised some questions as to their meanings and we would like to offer to you our understandings as to their meanings. We request that you advise us where our understandings may be at variance with your understandings of these particular phrases or sentences. Our understandings are as follows: 1. Section 2.E., 1st sentence: We understand the phrase "local haulage" to mean Eastside's haulage by truck of coal from its mine onto these "local" roads. 2. Section 2.F., 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: We understand this sentence to mean that maintenance of the road for which Eastside's escrowed funds may be used would be limited to the physical reconstruction of discrete sections of the road to alleviate road physical degradation problems (e.g., potholes and specific area breakup of the road's surface and structural integrity) caused by soils and drainage problems and truck traffic, or "enhanced maintenance efforts" (e.g. application of some road surface sealant) which would be other than regular maintenance (i.e. snowplowing, watering, etc. maintenance work). • • page 2 of letter to Commissioners 07-29-93 3. Section 2.F., 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: While no specific sentence or phrase in this sentence covers this issue, we request that the County have an understanding with Eastside that notice of the County Road and Bridge Department's proposed maintenance plans for these roads which would trigger the use of Eastside's escrowed funds would be given to Eastside prior to the Board's approval of such annual budget proposals or expenditures and that Eastside be provided some reasonable time frame to review such proposals and submit its written or oral comments to the Board for their consideration at some public hearing before the Board. 4. Section 2.F., 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence: We understand that this sentence means that Eastside will receive notice of the claim of noncompliance, and will have an opportunity to a public hearing on this claim, prior to any action of the Board formally to revoke this permit. Put another way, this sentence does not require an instant revocation of the permit by operation of this sentence upon some County employee's mere or unilateral declaration of noncompliance. Such a declaration or claim should be heard and determined by the Board in a public hearing first. Thank you for your review of these offered understandings. If we should not receive some written response from you within 2 weeks of your receipt of this letter, then we shall proceed with the understanding that you do not disagree with our offered understandings and agree to be bound by these understandings in any future interpretation of these particular phrases or sentences. Sincerely, ,�, Step en Self General Manag SS/11 xc: David R. Sturges Dennis Stranger Robert L.G. Watson • • SPECIAL USE PERMIT Eastside Coal Company, Inc. In accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979, as amended, and Resolution No. 93-060 of the Board of County Conunissioners of Garfield County, State of Colorado, hereby authorizes, by Special Use Permit, the following use: Natural Resource extraction (Coal Mine) and associated facilities on the following described tract of land in Garfield County, Colorado: See Attached The within Special Use Permit is issued subject to the conditions set forth in the above- mentioned resolution, and shall be valid only during compliance with such conditions and other applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning resolution, Subdivision Regulations, Building Code, and other regulations of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman r Dat Legal Description Special Use Permit Area HARVEY GAP PROPERTY Township 5 South, Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. Section 19: S1/2 NW1/4, N1/2 SW1/4, and S1/2 SE1/4 Section 29: NW1/4 NW1/4 Section 30: NE1/4 NE1/4 Township 5 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. Section 23: NE1/4 NE1/4 Section 24: All Section 25: NW1/4 NE1/4 and N1/2 NW1/4 Section 26: NE1/4 NE1/4 Except the tracts of land numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 as more particularly described in certified copy of Order, Rule, Judgment and Decree in condemnation recorded in Book 321 at Page 270, Reception No. 207196 on October 28, 1959 in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, containing 2.92 acres, more or less. Except a tract of land 300 feet by 700 feet in said Section 24 as particularly described in deed recorded in Book 25 at Page 239 of the Garfield County records containing 4.82 acres more or less, containing 1153.00 acres, more or less. �c....:...��r .-_..n �. . • • • STEVE SELF, 876-2944, REQUESTED MAINTENANCE COSTS ON THE FOLLOWING ROADS FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS: CO RD227 CO RD 33 CO RD 237 I WENT BACK TO 1988, AND HERE ARE THE COSTS THAT I CAN SHOW THROUGH 1992, THESE DO NOT INCLUDE SNOW REMOVAL OR ADMIN. CO RD(227) 1988 - MAINT. $ 20,165.40 1989 - HOT MIX/MAINT. $ 22,972.56 1990 - MAINT. $ 1,044.76 1991 - ROBERT SCARROW/MAINT. $ 1,412.57 1992 - MAINT. $ 244.30 TOTAL $ 45,839.59 CO RD(?33) 1988 - MAINT. $ 3,294.72 1989 - MAINT. $ 1,442.23 1990 - SEAL COATING/MAINT. $ 43,255.08 1991 - CHIP & SEAL/SEAL COAT/PREP WORK/MAINT. $ 14,057.39 1992 - MAINT. $ 98.20 TOTAL $ 62,147.62 CO RD (2-3-1) 1988 - CHIP & SEAL/MAINT. $160,065.12 1989 - MAINT. $ 410.75 1990 - MAINT. $ 27,073.60 1991 - MAINT. $ 3,434.38 1992 - MAINT. $ 1,619.25 TOTAL $192,603.10 TOTAL ALL THREE ROADS: $$ 300,590.31 60) /1 5/f. no. • • • Negotiating Session June 16, 1993 Eastside Coal Representatives Stephen Self, General Manager Dennis Stranger, Planner Jeff Simonson, Road Engineer Dave Sturges, Legal - by speaker phone Garfield County Representative Mark Bean, Planning Director Don DeFord, Legal King Lloyd, Road Supervisor Citizens Present John Spangler At the start of the meeting, the County representatives were asked where the County's startingpoint was. It was stated the starting point was Bucky Arbaney's 12 cents/ton mile over 5.6 miles or 67.2 cents/mile. No other position of the county other than our offer of $7,461.00 for our incremental share of capital costs (which was not enough) was suggested. King Lloyd then presented the past five year maintenance costs for the haul route. He said these costs have been prorated for the sections of the roads actually used by Eastside. Further review 1 • • after this meeting reveals this may not be the actual case. The 1988 chip and seal/maintenance of $160,065.12 for 1.7 miles of road, not 3.2 miles. King stated the chip and seal project went from the mine entrance to 250 Road. This is 1.7 miles. It is 3.2 miles along 237 Road from the minesite to County Road 233. He stated it costs $22,000/mile to seal coat a 24' wide roadway. This figure times 1.7 comes out to $37,400.00 not $160,065.12. Don DeFord brought up the safety issues. King Lloyd stated the safety issues of the existing roads: 1. Narrow section of 237 at the south end of Harvey Gap. 2. Restricted sight distances along portions of all these roads. 3. The 233-227 intersection. Eastside Coal has already agreed to correct existing safety concerns prior to any coal trucks entering the county roads under this Special Use Permit. The improvements include: 1. Signage of the roads. 2. Reduced speed limits in areas of limited sight distances. 3. Striping of the centerline of the haul route. 4. Channelization of traffic at the 233-227 intersection. The total amount of the improvements to the haul route will not exceed $9,100.00. $8,000.00 was given as the cost of the improvements at the meeting. 2 • • King was asked if he had other safety concerns. He stated that it was his perception that the public would feel safer if the trucks were required to maintain some spacing. A fifteen minute spacing was suggested. I only agreed to insure that the trucks would enter the roads as a minimum of five minute intervals. I would not guarantee that a five minute interval would be maintained on the county roads. I also agreed to insure the trucks were equipped with CB radios, so as to allow communications with,the minesite to warn of any hazards along the route. If these hazards were stopping traffic, the next truck scheduled to leave the minesite would be delayed until the hazard was removed. Mechanical breakdown of the trucks was not be in included as a hazard. The County wants Eastside to guarantee a five minute spacing of the vehicles along the road. An agreement was not reached on the issue of the truck spacing. The maintenance figures for the past. 5 years was then discussed. Using King's figure of $22,000/mile for seal coating county roads, it was determined that it would cost $123,200 to seal coal the 5.6 miles of county roads along the haul route. He also stated he plans to seal coat all of the county roads on a 5-7 year basis. A seal coal every five years results in a cost of $123,200. At maximum production, there would be 100,000 tons of coal transported over these roads during five years. . • The increase in ESAL (equivalent single axle load) over these roads as a result of Eastside Coal's activities is six percent (6%). The increment of cost due to Eastside's activity is $7,392.00 or 7.39 cents per ton of coal. The county did not disagree with the method of calculation. Next, maintenance costs in between the years the road is seal coated was discussed. Based on the costs presented by King it was determined that approximately $23,000.00 was expended in patching the roads over the past five years. Again, using the 6% increase in ESAL for Eastside's traffic, the incremental cost of Eastside's activity is $1,380.00 or 1.38 cents per ton of coal. The county did not disagree with the method of calculation. Eastside Coal agreed to pay the County 8.8 cents/ton of coal transported across the county roads from the minesite to Highway 6 & 2.4 included in the haul route. The county then reiterated that 8.8 cents per ton was not enough. Eastside then asked the county again for a reasonable explanation as to another method of calculating Eastside Coal Company's impact fee to arrive at the figure the Commissioners were considering. They did .not have another method. 4 STEVE SELF, 876-2944, REQUESTED MAINTENANCE COSTS ON THE FOLLOWING ROADS FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS: CO RD 227 CO RD 233 CO RD 237 I WENT BACK TO 1988, AND HERE ARE THE COSTS THAT I CAN SHOW THROUGH .1992, THESE DO NOT INCLUDE SNOW REMOVAL OR ADMIN. CO RD 227 1988 - MAINT. 1989 - HOT MIX/MAINT. 1990 - MAINT. 1991 - ROBERT SCARROW/MAINT. 1992 - MAINT. TOTAL CO RD 233 1988 - MAINT. 1989 - MAINT. 1990 - SEAL COATING/MAINT. 1991 - CHIP & SEAL/SEAL COAT/PREP WORK/MAINT. 1992 - MAINT. CO RD 237 1988 - CHIP & SEAL/MAINT. 1989 - MAINT. 1990 - MAINT. 1991 - MAINT. 1992 - MAINT. TOTAL TOTAL $ 20,165.40 $ 22,972.56 $ 1,044.76 $ 1,412.57 $ 244.30 $ 45,839.59 $ 3,294.72 $ 1,442.23 $ 43,255.08 $ 14,057.39 $ 98.20 $ 62,147.62 $160,065.12 $ 410.75 $ 27,073.60 $ 3,434.38 $ 1,619.25 $192,603.10 TOTAL ALL THREE ROADS: $$ 300,590.31 • • Road Concerns King Lloyd, Garfield County Road and Bridge Supervisor, identified two sections of the proposed haul route on county roads where he has concerns. The proposed haul route is from the mine south on County Road 237 to County Road 227, and south on County Road 227 to Highway 6. The areas of concern are: 1. At the south or lower end of Harvey Gap there is a rock escarpment adjacent to the road. The rock escarpment "protrudes into" the roadway causing the road to be narrow in that section. 2. The intersection of County Road 233 and 227: Silt Mesa Road and Miller Lane intersection. In the past, numerous accidents have occurred at this intersection. The first area to be addressed is the area where the rock escarpment is next to the road. A description of the driving surfaces and shoulder widths will be discussed from south of the rock escarpment to approximately 200 feet to the north, past the escarpment. The driving width is considered as that part of the road which has a chip and seal surface. The shoulder of the road is measured from the chip and seal to a point where the slope increases to prevent vehicular traffic. This surface may be either gravel or natural ground. Approximately 150 feet south of the rock escarpment, the width of the driving surface is 21.5 feet with a four foot shoulder on the east of the road and a five foot shoulder on the west of the road. At the midpoint of the curve (halfway through the curve adjacent to the rock escarpment) the driving width is 2.4 feet. The shoulder width at this point is approximately 2.5 feet on the east side. The shoulder on the east drops down into the Harvey Gap Drainage. The chip and seal is adjacent to a small drainage along the west side next to the rock. There is no shoulder ori the west side. Approximately 120 feet north of this point, which is past the major part of the rock escarpment, the driving surface is 19 feet wide. The east side of the road has a 5 foot shoulder and the west side has approximately 7 feet from the edge of the chip and seal to where the ground slopes up. There is a small drainage cut with a blade on the west side. Approximately 30 feet to the north is another smaller rock escarpment, on the west side of the road. It is 7 feet from the edge of the chip and seal surface. The driving surface here is also 19 feet wide with a 3 foot shoulder on the east side. The driving surface then gradually widens to 23 feet over the next. 150-200 feet. The shoulder on the east remains narrow for about 150 feet, then widens to over 8 feet. • • The width of the driving surface around the curve is as wide as or wider than the driving surface of the rest of the road. The narrow section is just to the north of the curve in a tangent section. After passing the second small rock escarpment, the road widens to 23 feet. There are a couple of options for correcting the narrow section. 1. Excavate both the large and small rock escarpments to allow the centerline to be shifted to the west in the narrow section. This would accomplish two items. It would increase the sight distances and increase the driving surface width in the tangent section as well as in the curve. 2. Increase the driving surface width in the tangent section by chip and sealing a couple more feet on the west side of the road. 3. Put signs up with.a reduced speed limit to conform to existing sight distances. Eastside Coal pro •oses to put a curve sign with'speed limit to con t is ances. The second area of concern is the intersection of County Road 233 and County Road 237. This concern is raised because of numerous accidents in the past. A visual inspection of the intersection indicates it is located on a high point. The area outside the road right-of-way to the south of 233 and east of 227 is higher than the intersection. This leads to some sight distance problems when the traffic pattern at the intersection is analyzed. County Road 227 starts at Highway 6 and goes north and terminates at County Road 233. Traffic going north on 227 must either go east or west on 233, unless the traffic is accessing the driveway going north off 233. The east edge of the driving surface on 227 is flared, starting about 100 feet before the actual intersection is reached and curves to the east to intersect the south edge of the driving surface of 233, at 120 feet past the intersection. The west edge of the driving surface does the same, but flares to the west from about 60 feet before the intersection to 60 feet after the intersection on 233. This creates a very wide intersection. The design, sight distances of the intersection, and traffic flow all come together to cause potential problems. Sight distances were not measured in the field, but while driving west on 233 approaching the intersection, the higher topography does limit visibility to the south on 227. Also on- coming traffic (eastbound) on 233 is obscured by the vertical curve in 233 until approximately 150 feet from the intersection. 2 • • Eastbound traffic on 233 also cannot see traffic westbound on 233 until approaching the intersection. Visibility for traffic moving east and west on 233 is not ample due to the higher terrain and vegetation along the roads. Once cars are at the intersection, visibility down 227 is good. Traffic traveling north on 227 have the same problem with visibility as the traffic on 233. The flared intersection allows traffic to use the intersection as a short radius curve versus an intersection (See Drawing County Roads 227-233 Intersection, attached). Traffic going west on 233 starts to turn down 227 approximately 120 feet prior to reaching the intersection. Cars traveling west on 233 turning south onto 227 follow the flared edge. The distance from the flared edge to the car was from 4 feet to 15 feet. The closer cars travel to the edge of the flared area, the greater the potential for traffic accidents to occur with traffic northbound on 227. The stop sign for vehicles entering 233 onto 227 is placed 65 feet hack from the intersection, along the flared part of the intersection. Most traffic goes past the stop sign and slows down or stops before entering 233. It is not known by the author of this report whether the accidents occurred prior to placement of the stop signs on 227 and warning signs on 233. It is assumed the signs (i.e. Bad Corner, Intersection, Slow) were placed as a result of the accidents. The glans are in poor repair and need replacing. The options to correct the safety problems at the 233 and 227 intersection are: 1. Remove the flared sections of the intersection. This would force the traffic on 233 to access the area of the intersection with the best visibility all around prior to initiating a left hand turn onto 227. Also it would allow placement of the stop sign at the intersection and be more logical for people to stop at the sign. 2. Erect a concrete island in the flared section to accomplish the same as in suggestion 1. The difference would be the northbound traffic ori 227 could use the flared section to turn east on 233. Then a yield sign might be appropriate for this traffic. Traffic gonia west on 233 would be required to stop. The main objection, again, is to force traffic westbound on 233 to make a proper 1,t hand turn ontn 227 at the intersection. 3. Replace the existing slow signs and place a graphi, a1 sign showing the configuration of the intersection. 1t is not nowr, whether ()I not al ternFot e locations of the step sign woulrl be beneficial. Futur•? 1,; ;,: Grts cou1r1, answer this Lt:_h1en T,dstside Coal is p'roposng to 1 -,--place the old that t ar- ."l(le+.1 anc nstil l new gran..'�3l sign slTSWZng the intersection • • >- W W z - Z 0 Ln �G 0(Y (' O t (.) CO L') x o 0 0 O o o J Z m LU a Q) F+ tel i 11 0 O 0. O G✓ a C f- a o ao CL•r L C7 � II (;) J 3 CE, proposal ti) 0 Z !t7 • ^+ .) (T; ^ cr 0 G r r .r Q) 1' O Q. Ul 4- 0' U - c U 03 u- - • •.• O 0 C O- rG i- iu. Q) - D:- = G u— r 0 Cf 0 D C _ Ts_ ,- O. _, .r; ;:� CS _ >. •.•; •,-t n ,, •.i ii C c G) G; l- CG _ 1 - •--7 a) Q) .2)J J • tfi 0 - 0) 0::� 1- E 0 .,_t 03 'Zi r _ __ _• ..t O• L+ 0 0 O •rt G) 0 .-t 0 _ - 0)_ r co t .. u- Dtff _Z t- Uf n ••.1 Q) :- (.) C Qi K tff --1 0 15 >. .� Cn Q: •.-1 O O 0 - Q? C r i (' U: 0C t- a) • G) 0 0) V', Q) 3 > CO3 — i 0 3 `)0. C 0J t- .- • _ w iii ( t-') 0 - - r-- G G (i) th r,0' •r+0. tr(V - 0 0 Ai f'- -a • (N rs; E •-t -+ - Oi 7+ 0 C+ a) > • r+ - G) C •••4 C r C .0 @) • .,-t r 0 >. ,rt ..•) ., Cr E t1) - r -0 . - +- •.-) 0) W O :..) a i •- c_) r-. J ,-t >, •n .-s rf .:_% 0) 0 0 0 u. tG 3 O+ � 0 (ff a .7 +G ? - r - :� a-+ L G 3 O O r CD 0 7 r Q) Q) G C O 0)- r ` C) - - 0� 4—.�0cL0 •-> a) - G ;4(7-.).. = _ (u a -{ (J- 7 .01 a) a) 03--03o.00-- 4, J - s0 4- >• 3 ((f •r+ a x - U O 'Tv c; a) 'Cn C) 0) (3 Z •HC •.-t i - 0 Qt > O - -; 0) 0 c 0) .rt C3+ >. Li+ 4- C = tfi CO 0 Vs (I) 01 C O+ 4- 'O = N 0_ ....t ...,..} C > - 7 O+ 0 03 G G) CO 0 0 w O Q) C U C- 3 >. 0 r C- 0= 0 0 -t 4- u - r, ., t- r, Q. 0 - - a O • • ..I• w, c• d j N • N 6, co TA b T c ' v d O C. ,.c..... pU cd O O ▪ ▪ O c. :7 a) T M .N � • 6.cd cj ON a)W cd 5 ~ > 3 . -• . 2 b A3 E on • w 3 2 ;HE0 bp ZO �" ° 6• 9' Tt:c9 0 ' - a -0 2 rn5 W cd o�, 0 o m • J 'n a) O U cd Vo V cd a) -' .-4 11)4 W W a) . cin ti .° 3 o en • vl �bcd a �'0 w, i > cd .t: N V O ;� flo a • o U cc; = bn o ,c. •-4 E- Ga. A a 4 ▪ 0 cd a • N ti O) ti Li) Nta N ti LO N CD N CO rn • . PC 5/12/93 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Eastside Mine, Special Use Permit for a mineral extraction operation APPLICANT: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Sections 19, T5S, R91W and Sections 23 and 24, T5S, R92W, more practically described as a parcel located approximately 3.5 miles north of Silt off of County Road 237. SITE DATA: An 830 acre tract for a coal mine and associated facilities. WATER: Individual wells and spring SEWER: Individual sewage disposal system ACCESS: Via County Road 237 ,EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: North: O/S South: A/R/RD, O/S East: A/R/RD, O/S West: O/S I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parcel is located in Districts D, Rural Areas with Moderate Environmental Constraints and District F, Rural Areas with Severe Environmental Constraints. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is in the Harvey Gap area of the Grand Hogback and is a narrow valley floor with water running north to south, with the Grass Valley Reservoir on the north end. The terrain is generally fairly steep, with predominantly pinon-juniper trees with Indian rye-grass, cheatgrass, large sagebrush and other similar types of vegetation indigenous to this type of area. Mining activity has occurred in the area since 1913, with an existing mine on the east side of the gap and remnants from previous mining activity on the west side. 1 • • There is an office, bathhouse, shop and generator shed on the site presently, that are from previous mining activity approved in 1985. 13. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a coal mine and associated facilities. The request is for a maximum of 20,000 tons per year for the life of the mine. The mine will employ eight (8) people during that time. The disturbed area of the mine site will be a maximum of 13 acres, which will include all buildings, storage and waste disposal areas. The mine portal area is on the east side of the gap and will have the office, bathhouse, shop, generators, powder magazine, water tank, processing plant, coal and rock storage areas and equipment storage areas. The west side of the gap will have the waste disposal area, which is included in the previously noted 13 areas of disturbed area. The mine's water needs will be for dust suppression in the mine, domestic water for the bathhouse, office and sanitary facilities, and for cooling equipment and exhaust scrubbers. The estimated 75,000 gallons per year of domestic water would come from a spring, two wells and water pumped from the mine. Domestic drinking water will be provided from bottled water from a local purveyor. The water is stored in a 10,000 gallon storage tank. Sewage is dealt with by an existing individual sewage disposal system. Coal will be hauled off-site in end dump trailer trucks with a gross weight of 68,000 to 80,000 pounds. It is proposed that there will be an average of five round trips a day, Monday through Friday. The trucks will haul 18 to 25 tons of coal in each load, which will be covered. The trucks will use County roads 237 to 233 to 227, to access Highway 6 & 24 (See map page' 'C' - ). J-IISTORY Up until 1985, coal mining activity on the subject lands has occurred since 1913, with a maximum annual production of 5,970 tons. In 1985, Garfield County by Resolution 85-42, approved a 200,000 ton/year maximum production. From 1985 to 1990, when the permit expired, the mine produced a maximum of 6,960 tons of coal. Since that time, Eastside Coal has continued to operate as a nonconforming use, with a maximum production level of 857 tons per year. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. ,Zoning: Mineral extraction, processing, storage and material handling are special uses in the A/R/RD zone district. As a special use, certain requirements must be met: 5.03 (1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Health officer shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; (2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; i 2 (3) • • Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land thro ugh installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. 5.03.07 (1) An impact statement demonstrating that the application shall be designed and operated in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of the County, State and Federal governments, and will not have a significant adverse effect upon: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run- off, stream flow or ground water; (B) Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; (C) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration or existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. (2) Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create hazards or nuisances to areas elsewhere in the County; (3) Sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed uses; (4) Permits shall be granted for those uses only with the provisions that a satisfactory rehabilitation plan for the affected land be submitted prior to commencement of such use. 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards: (1) Volume of the sound generated: every use shall be so operated that the volume of sound inherently and recurrently generated does not exceed ninety (90) decibels, with a maximum increase of five (5) decibels permitted for a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes in any one (1) hour, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; (2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; I 3 9 • . (3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards; (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes apublic nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision; (5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas: (A) Storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be in accordance with accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the National Fire Code; (B) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property; (C) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces; (D) All materials or wastes which might constitute a fire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors in accordance with applicable State Board of Health Regulations; (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operations of the facilities may begin. All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must be met before operation of the facilities may begin. The following are the staff responses to the applicants proposal: 5.03 (1) The applicant has proposed to use water pumped from the mine, a spring and two wells as the source of domestic water. A plan of augmentation has been submitted to the water court, but there is no final ruling on the plan. Once the final decree is approved, the applicant will have adequate water for domestic purposes. Sewage is being treated by an existing individual sewage disposal system installed in the 1970's. There is no known capacity of the septic tank or leach field. Either the capacity will have to be determined and found to be capable of handling the proposed needs or a new approved system should be installed per a permit from Garfield County. 4 . ao • • (2) The applicant has submitted an analysis of the road impacts, based on a road study done for the County by Chen -Northern that concludes that the proposed coal haul trucks will not cause any additions need for improvements to the impacted County roads (See letter pages o? b a'? ). The applicant's analysis uses a different method of analyzing the data developed from the Chen -Northern study and comes to a different, but similar conclusion. The Chen -Northern study used a Falling Weight Deflectometer to test the various County roads strength to establish a level of improvements necessary, to meet the projected traffic impacts for a five (5) year design life. The applicant's analysis used the data from the Chen -Northern study to establish R -values for the pavement and sub -base of the impacted roads. Using these values and the projected traffic loading, the applicant established a one and one-half (1.5) year design life. Both studies conclude that additional overlay depths are necessary to deal �� existi traffic, but they have different amounts of overlay needed (See maps pages ). A summary of the overlay depths recommended by each study is as follows: Road Chen -Northern (5 yr.) SGM (1.5 yr) CR 227 0.5" 3.5" CR 233 0.7" 3.0" CR 237 (South of Mine) 1.0" 3.5" CR 237 (at Mine) 0.5" NONE The applicant's (SGM) analysis states that the 1990 existing traffic load will require the equivalent overlay, to the 1990 traffic plus the projected coal trucks. In other words, the coal truck traffic will not increase the amount of overlay needed to meet existing traffic loads. The staff has difficulty reviewing the two analysis that utilize different techniques to evaluate the road impacts. Each has a different design life, five (5) years versus one and one-half (1.5) years. The applicant's position is that the trucks will not increase the amount of overlay needed, therefore there is no need for the applicant to make any improvements to the haul road. Section 5.03(2) states that there need to be "street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide, safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use". Both studies conclude that the existing road is inadequate to deal with just existing traffic. The previously noted section of the zoning requires "improvements adequate to accommodate traffic generated", which the County does not have the capability of doing by itself. So, unless the applicant is willing to make improvements to the road, a finding that there are street improvements adequate to accommodate the traffic generated and provide safe, convenient access cannot be made. The applicant does note that they have participated in repair and maintenance activities previously, but there is not commitment to continue at least that type of agreement. (3) The applicant has reviewed the visual impacts of the mine and in summary noted that the primary visual impacts will be fairly minimal when driving by the mine site and from certain points on the Harvey Gap Reservoir dam embankment. Given the proposed small scale of the mine and associated facilities, the impacts to adjacent properties will be minimal in terms of visual impacts. Access points to the mine site and waste disposal areas are located in reasonable locations. The only signs proposed are those required by the State MLRB. 5 moo • • 3.03.07 (1) (a) As noted previously, the applicant has filed a plan of augmentation for the necessary water rights. Enclosed in the application is a copy of an approved Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit effective 7/1/92. (b) Eastside Coal has an approved Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, Emission Permits issued on 1/16/84 for coal processing; primary and secondary crushing and screening; underground coal mining operation; material handling, vehicle traffic emissions and other similar air emission sources. Also included in the application is a noise impact study done by Engineering Dynamics of Englewood that demonstrates that noise from the mine site and truck traffic from the mine will comply with state noise level limits. There are no identified sources of glare due to reflection from or lighting on the site. None of the mining activities will result in vibration off of the property. (c) The Colorado Division of Wildlife has reviewed the application and based on the proposal does not anticipate any additional impacts to wildlife in the area. (2) Truck traffic's physical impacts on County roads was reviewed previously. The average of five (5) round trips per say, Monday through Friday, are to be covered, minimizing the possibility of dust affecting properties along the haul route. The County Road and Bridge department has expressed some concerns about the traffic safety (See memo page (30 ). The Road and Bridge department's concerns are related to the physical narrowness of the road in one section and signage/stripping along the route. The traffic due to recreational use poses a potential safety concern. Silt officials have expressed concern about heavy truck traffic travelling through town, rather than going west on 6 & 24 to access the Interstate system. As noted previously, the trucks will not exceed any statutory noise limitations according to the applicant's consultant. The applicant has received an approval of the coal haul schedule date of June, 1991. Confirmation by the School District that this schedule is still valid, should be obtained prior to issuance of any permits. In general, hauling will be between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Emergency hauling may occur to three (3) times a quarter, with notification to the Planning Department in advance. If this is approved, notice should be given to the Road and Bridge department, not the Planning Department. (3) Automobile traffic due to employees and vendors, should not pose a problem, based on the relatively small scale of the mine. The mining operations nearest property line is 413 feet from the north property line. This is the property line that is contiguous with the Harvey Gap State Recreation area. The State Park Ranger has noted that there will be visual impacts and potential traffic impacts (See letter page 3/ ). These issues have been addressed in previous comments. (4) Eastside Coal has a reclamation plan approved by the State Mined Land Reclamation Division, dated June 29, 1990, and with an expiration date of 6 • • January 13, 1995. This permit must remain valid for the life of any permit approved by the County. Included in the approval of the reclamation plan is a $49,000.00 bond for reclamation, that the State has determined is adequate. 5.03.08 (1) As noted previously, Engineering Dynamics of Englewood has concluded that Eastside Coal will comply with all County and State noise limits; (2) Eastside has indicated that there is no anticipated vibration that will be noticed on adjacent properties, due to any of their operations; (3) Eastside has air emission permits in place for all operations on the site requiring permits. No other operations are anticipated to cause smoke or particulate matter emissions; (4) No heat, glare, radiation or fumes are anticipated that will substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining properties; (5) (a) All explosives are stored in a concrete and steel storage explosive magazine, with the appropriate permits in place from the Colorado Division of Mines. All other flammable liquids are stored in metal tanks; (b) All outdoor storage of fuel products is encircled by a concrete retaining wall or earthen berm two feet high to minimize any spill or leak. Given that the supply storage area is behind the bathhouse and office, there does not appear to be any purpose in requiring additional screening of these facilities; (c) Solid waste disposal from the mining operation will be disposed of in a waste disposal area approved as a part of the MLRB permit. The disposal area is located on the west side of the gap and will be visible for short periods of time from CR 237. MLRB requires drainage and dust control measures; (d) The coal storage area may constitute a fire hazard, but will be stored in compliance with the COH Emission permit and should not constitute a fire hazard; (e) The mining operation is required to comply with parameters established in the State Waste Water Discharge permit. There are monitoring requirements to ensure that water quality is maintained. There are additional sampling and monitoring requirements required by MLRB. 9.03.05 The application for the Special Use Permit is for the life of the mine and if deemed necessary, periodic reviews of compliance or noncompliance. At the last major special use permit for a coal mine (NCIG), the Board of County Commissioners imposed the following language as a part of a condition of approval: Once begun, any cessation of mining activity for a period of more than one (1) year shall be considered an invalidation of all land use permits and any resumption of mining activity shall require a new special use permit application. 7 a3 av • • For purposes of this Resolution, "mine activity" in terms of cessation of mine activity, means the mining of coal in excess of 10,000 tons per calendar year. "Mine activity" does not mean construction of surface facilities at the mine site nor does it mean the construction of the mine including, but not limited to, the completion of rock tunnels, the installation of mine ventilation equipment and other such mine development activities. Itis suggested that a similar condition be imposed on any approval of this application. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the public meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all parties were heard at the meeting. 2. That proposed special use conforms to the application requirements of Section 5.03.07 and 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in all directions if appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use is consistent with the best interests of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION Unless the applicant can propose some method of mitigating the road impacts, the Planning Commission cannot make a determination that there are "street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use", therefore, the request should be denied. If improvements to the County road can be made, the following conditions should be included with an approval: jig/9 /h (1) That all road improvements and safety ihiprovements necessrS' improve im rove CR 227, CR 233, and CR 237 to provide a safe and convenient access to the mine be completed prior to issuance of a Special Use permit; (0) The applicant demonstrate that the existing individual sewage disposal system is properly sized to meet the needs of the mine or construct an ISDS that is approved by the County; (Prior to issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant submit a letter from the RE -2 School Distri t conf ing the current school bus schedule; 4:•601t3Ct �at all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners; • • (Once begun, any cessation of mining activity for a period of more than one (_) year shall be considered an invalidation of all land use permits and any resumption ofmining activity shall require a new special use permit application. For purposes of this Resolution, "mine activity" in terms of cessation of mine activity, means the mining of coal in excess of 10,000 tons per calendar year. "Mine activity" does not mean construction of surface facilities at the mine site nor does it mean the construction of the mine including, but not limited to, the completion of rock t nels, the installation of mine ventilation equipment and other such mine develo ent activities. 6r77d e- /n -e77140 '• I /c/- ayol� 9 ,aT Match 22, 1993 E O U r3 0 O LI) 0 CD W >- x • 0 0 N �1 U 1. rz $111Lt1J tte-evaluatloh 1IJ Dear Steve: �+- L o - - alt •O 1D .1Jy=-r W ,- -70... lc ,r fA .L -E 4- 0 0) -m 0 • -�'-= 1l) — r co -o - �0 o >, . --0.0 0 -O CD_..... -1- W "D 0 �.� 4. W -0 -CS, >, aJ 0) 0)tli- >.0 4-10 • \ L.r) d to i v- —W' L y .0 r rp ..... 31 !v \ W tJ — = S O >,— ra \ to \ > f1 0 O >J p W CLo m N II F - 0 _ C) rC U W V "C1::.11 o I I 3.0 O �` y W - ..O �"O-, IIS I:y — C?) 7 O .O CO 'V C9�— 11 O ?y N ~ L © a- W y y, N 11 0 - p i N 0) al 0) 0 > 0 CO °oNZ eQ�.�' - °off oo co -- +- U o >� L -E7)-- ....— tss D O C::: t+7 O 0 L ID 10 _ L"7 -p W p ... to to in ti) Ela _ >. tJ '- y CU a) 0) t- co 10 to �. - to _... .p L W _ .Y 10 U ..`. L' i - Ta 0 y =O 7 N 'r' 13 c) .� co i O r us 0 1 O 0 +' to U L - �• = .Y_ U t/0 0_ - 1= W N tC 7 LI: 0 _ y C) t11 t0 .- t:)= O t6 L Ur-- NY N N .• LL II - i=tt1 vLr W W`. -"'-- 0 .p°NO i .a —=050 , ---... r ... , R NW._ XL W W Lto ° O � = •C Oj: L = E to sr., O 'O Ot6 p 0 L W 1J 111 UII'p i. m Lrn1t �O L... ..1{.. 0)r p WN rW i r }- N W Z N ; 0 i O tD>'W p C.wsz CC t— r.9..'Vr0 o _\�U L CS i.N O p p... i • IV 0 -0 ... O I_ C7 WC‘i 3 L >' X G nW Tn E N N !9 aU NWW 4... 03O_ = W • >'W , + ✓ = N te O t0 Q coc r- > p0—>--CSvs \ O O o W -p U 7 ti) •p —. ... 0 ^ r CO LJ]- fir-oi� -a3 ._ L oeo N 1 Dmo O O, o W mra N c w - U N W O W LL U pp us N0 0 L= WO..- tocx00 0 < N 0) Q 14 CI) .0 co !— 1:01....00 ) Co cn • L1 D t r) C7 0 o. D 011 0) 0 N N 0) \ = r r. 0 t?) En Cr) -Z 7. CV _ Ce) 1:7 Cr) O c 0 Z W t - tr) r r— L)) N N CV 0 N Tt LL 0 0 0 0y Q cn :-•:^ �, _ r. -r._ _- ._. rr. " , -- fir �e - .- _3s-•'- .'• :.-+' • • .___.tea -r;•.a- --_aT _ . , ..c...,..,-667--,,,,,...,5)45„.....:44.2...,.....v...,,.,Thrpg.,.......=;;....t_:= .7.7.,.......„,_. ,,..-.,.,„...,. - � �r-€..- .,� ..�_ ".sem: :, p L°t:- mac, -"S -4:•:. . +.s-� - - - �t�o-a•,rp,�:;•;:tz- �•_; —.fir-.�.s�.�•�:�a!t?'�: . • ... ^r. F.--^1:41T4'r:....4...,..:dil..:::: .::L-12: "r?..r - i=q Yt-- --rZ M..,-.'.:.,:",,%,,,,r.- ....ri..i✓r;� •'I. —tr. �.... rEcr :717.7.ZW.1::=.1. z ..fir` -sem lir.7.,271.-... 'do-!- -t .41 �+.� _ 'E n4•: -...._- v . ,-- 74E.4g-ffT'TF_•`�-r�f'R-_-T'.e..'�'s''L- i RSSFT{P�'i.rs• .. N.r •c..r.••u; *k-rr„r - Y' r. s'—! ¢ yCs- .+'+• :,-.• xc.l Y. C+f -- �'_ r.hcay.' • • 01) 1$$ • March 22, 1993 Stove self Page 2 ••ii , I I'. , '.:• .0 $• le )1 1.• • I . I • t • • As. yoU car see from the table, a yea': and a halt of limiting coal Al hot retillifil overlay dehlhs greater than already needed to pFoperly Inaliililh 016 i-oadsfol 1 existing tt-atfic loadings. • please do not hesitate to call if yoti have any questions. Sincerely, sbl-IMUEsEtt GOMON MEYEfl, INC. ban bolciey, E.I.T. Encl. Datia90248.2 SCIIMUESEll GOtIDON MEYEri, NC • 1, • • . ..*:. • 1.1 • r r 5 . . D Vt-` "`` OL .\ ��... i GARrIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. 80X 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81802-2254 Phone 945-5ili DATE: April 8,1993 TO: Mark F OM: king RE: Eastside Mitis special Use Application. I have reviewed the pavement evaluation analysis submitted by Schmueser Gordon Meyer and find it to be gUite differeht from that the County had received from Chen Northern oh earlier proposals Using the same base information. I have submitted draWings to you that better illustrate their differences: With such differences iti the base ihformatioh, d.tnord thoroUgh analysis of the road with the. proposed truck thatfic might show that indeed there is.a greater pavement depth needed just for the truck traffic. Even with that thoUght aside, the two reports do agree that the existing .road eah expect a shortened life and a greater amount of Indihtehatibe due to the existing traffic loads. I wodld argue that With a..., road identified as already deficieht. is ho reasoh to opeti the gate to Unlimited Use. The road & bridge budget could hot afford to rebuild or sthehgtheh this road for the hioFe tybical traffic -of the area, much less for a col tnihe hhU1 road. Does this application address those items that have beeh identified in preceding submittals for vehicUlar saroty? There still remains two areas of concern for vehicUlar saf=ety . and the road template; ohe is the harrow sectioh of I-oad i h the cahyon caused by a rock escarpment that protrudes ihto the roadway, the other is the intersection of ClZ 233 and Cit 227 as having tiUtnerous accidehts in the past. Truck traffic signs need to be posted as needed to satisfy the recommendations of the "MahUal for Uniform Traffic CohtFoi Devices." Centerline stripping alohg the haUl hoUte WoUld be good for delineation and to advise for no passing. This it a, heavily Used roUte for recreational traffic; which coU1d regUihe additional safety brecaUtions in the fULUI-e. - _-_ _- - ._ _ - -`ra.vr 'C=am �..]i' -,-4--....;:::, -,-1 'g n m o G P -+-i �. - �..sA.� ..=ms's' sem.°'r r,,�� at SJR ua J -Y -.-•f to M�:� �-•. -41 -Cl ':= "D V1 - - CJ " .e .+,-.f Qi 0 O Z :../ f -ter � -�• CIS : :: [LS CI Q 11 -... +ew hatlir .crF— V'S_Cu G7 C7 rdU +r -i- L1T: -:CL'0) l--�{"�• � 4 •g t.;:._.,1----7Z-z---'•V-a Q .amu ''CI D .J `r, D iv 44Q !a r 3,CUCi 41 ••-• o.r - r LI En.0(y 41-4 O a =CG u Q d] 5 -" a r =,. 0 'Z i ..r Q 'L'3 «�.� :.f • -r•� .-«� �C3 w CW 0J .yy`W" r —r: ^-;,- — •� zr, :s .+ C!Y L7 !�+`P = CSW � i o L4 'moi .t T T CG n r r gypp`` 0 .,0 .w --a•° = e�w coMt - _ to v, - --� Ci, "U CC O Cup :LL -2: U -u �'DQ--,fit C7 Cry- d ,--i 41 _ -721 14 til a 3 O �' i r•• + - r• C3 w il LP 1-1 1-J C.7 > -r{ p u �00 - '- "" ! sD r ca rs U rd "- .te -- >, sa .-a u -r W P �S -- tou •-f Q T 0 _LS CS '+ U ri U r ] C1 -i co DD r-7 Q V W ,,...4 UrLS Q1 U? 3 C11 D n7 t fU C_9 C D 0 0 r .. Mt ..�. k3 �_ [moi} CZ C7 1 -> ,, R lf7 tTl�7p Cy �Sy�- • • M CO 0 w sn .0 ,-s .t~ II) v •r[ Z 0) "0 3 r-[ Ln 0 3.I 4 0) C p-{ Z ba) 4•) m Q) 0 0 0 0 A r) -r-I 4 0 C 03 CI) 0 A •f-! 0] 4 r-1 N o 0 0 .4 0 3 0 $--t 0 0 4-3 4 0 rd r -I .0 0 0 0 rCf 'd >s 0) )4 '" 0 f-1 C i•S 0 ri 0 .. 0 �) r -i .- I -.-1 4a J_) " a) ai r- �) W - o0 ra� 'd :,..1 rn •r4 a LJ o CO IQ m tT Q r> 0 No) -,-1 ..P CU rn ri (1) 0) C -e-C Q) ila o LO 0) •� -rl Ub 0 C -) 0 3 > 0 .4 01 (0 0 -f-5 N 0 4� A -rl --I 0 . 0) U) .I-) - V rr3 «3 • 3 N N r l Q) 0) 4•{ 0) '+ I U 0 0 0 N fa 'd .0 I r� b ri 4-s ¢f 0] .0 0 C 0 C U) 0) .-� 0 t7 0 •r4 0 CCI rd 4-I ? y 0 C1 -rI 0 W) 3 0 it -474 0 r>Y • -I ..c.."fCS i!} r0 L) Z d 0) ri •r I U1 • -I M 0) >, 0 $- 0 •i rt ''d id 0 •rl 4�i 0 0 •1-) 4-4 ..-LQ Q) La .L) - -1 U) i-1 .4-) C 00 Q) W 0' LQ ?~ O . -,.i rd 0) M to 0 + E c0 U) Q1 V -r 4.J t!) y 4- C 0 U) r -I ry Q r-[ r -I 0 • 0 Tt i•1 �" M ill 0) al C 0 '0 r0 C C r-1 C d C 0 r-1 A A 0 0 0 -r•1 Ul 0 0) 0 C 0) [ rd (d 44 QA d C toW N I'll) +1 0)4.) -,-I *=i 0 4-4 •- -r P --I N 0 >i •ri C 4) O '3' 4- '-1 r -i rl •1-1 C ) 0 4.-) b C!) U S: 3 0) , C Q' -r-[ .1.) C r-1 r0 irS Z3 3 r-1 IiS 0 C r1 d 0) 0 [- N 0 0 '0 0) 0) 0 0 0) E 0 1-1 0 •r-1 rr3 0 0 V) Q-, +•-i V) (') -r I C.) is 'LS 0 4 0 0 0 O C 0 0 a, C r-1 da ry C it{ )-I 0 $ ka C - 4 a 0 V) -r-1 0 0 C 0) a3 0 0 r-1 0 0) co 0 0 0 U L0 0 C U 4� CD Z ✓' C L 0'H 04-1 .4 r -I 1:-H-1 i a) H CO ra o ren - 0 0 4- :.c� rc 4-i -r1 C --1 01 A a 0 0 -ri 4-1 ' r� 4-, ua � 0 rr3 .r0.{ 4-7 �• O - -,-.I D 0 0> 0 'd (I -I! 0 0 U) Z to 44.1 -r-[ U i -i 0 't 0 Q) O ry -'-I 1 10 � 4-r 4 r" M 3 U) a+ f ]a i-{ i•) 0) 0) Q) o'Ia o'l0 9,' C rrS .0 -r-I 0) -ri r4 Q) N s?, rt3 4 re) '0 0 0 m 0 O 0 fw 0) 4 '0 O r0 C -r1 1~ )-1 0 0 .: \ C 0 0 ."., to a) 4.4 - -1 'd i) C •rl 0 •r4 Q) 0 -r1 -I-I 4-) H rd ri r-{ €D U N 0 r i 3 a) -r�"i -� U_p 0) 0 nii -14-1 r6 4•I E I +% -P f 4) 1 4) 44 >•, 0) 0 0) 0 4.4 0) rIf 0 44 U'7 C., C rd 0 .4'''' r-C5w A 4-10 I!) r -t CN C 0 '0 (0 'iS Y -t , $-4 I"1-1 a CT Cv ' r'-)15 -4 m A 0 U) a al 0 E r -I W - ?, rti 90 0 44 'd •,-i -e-i •r -I • •-4 0 L) 4) • I 0 • .--{ i -r c0 Q) r 4 €-i Q) > Q) 0 Q) 0 0 Q) 0 0) Q) •r-[ •f.-1 4 U) r -I rd 440 -441-14�i 92 i r-Irrf U) 0) Qb) 4)0 Q) 0 1{) --I 3 3 -"-1 3 ., 3 U) 1-1 rd `?, •ri 171 `rI ar, 0 )-a )4 ? r •r -I C C k1 '0 b U is CU 0 to ..".I ,-I A 0 V) to rd U) 0) 0 U) LQ -,--1!-I ''0 U) • I -y rl •,-1 0 0 d) > C.,r i C Lf) 14 C U) C CO ›, rd rel0 r 4.4 0 04-1 0 In 0) it 0 0 E -ri r 1 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 rl r)) 1{ L) 0 id E 4-1 '0 la .P4W 41 0 tri CO 0 4.4 i-4 0 1 { 0 )..I r0 4) 0 C o r<i Q) 0 0) E C Q+ 0 0 C 0 Li) CAO t7) LT U] 01 C 4-) 0 F I c0 - 0 C ) U to E� H 0rti H H •-4 -r•1 Li) 0) 0 0 r0 ,-{ rd ..r. CP 0 0 0 4) CP '0 i C 4,) to C X •HCri O 0 4 rd 0 0 00 -•i E- 0 {-1 H4- H G7 fib+) O HA 0 • '6 page 2 of letter 04-30-93 inches of asphalt JI 0-.•-i ra-P 0 t' 0 0 J3 rd zx 't1 .4- a 4-3 ro • M a1 r -i -,-1 (l) 0 -r•I Z -rta i 0 0 44-4 a) 4 --1 r0 ca • .a - i 2 ra 0 -� 4] • m co t3+ a. �I 0 m J} a) a) r -I 4) b a m 1� • - - .0 -4-1 0 -r-I ; 0 N - u o th E a) > 0 a a) W ao x'0 -4- w ar ( a1 P rc rd ,—I N> 0 0 3 TS .P 4- 0 0 0 - °a1 ra -,-{ h7 A in -P Il) r --I r1 03 (tl Q • .Q 4i ''is [A CO 43 4.) -r-I 4-f W •r-1 't P.44 C.) 3 ri 13 .• r• N td ...a ti ui L9 a1 0 (-,,1 Z5 (15 • al N Ill "C3 C} •r1 a} • 4-I X „�, III .Q Z 0 W 4 4J a) m A R0S . r0 0 -.-i a) ..sa : 0 (>k „-I U) a' �"0 N 't3 P3 -r I .LJ L) 4-1 44 s~ in ).-r )-1 in (t _ o In rd •r-1 RS O 0 .''. G9 a} a) al A 0 • AQ 4 al 0 .p 4-1 4-1 0 W 1.4 -0 C CI A • M U1 UI tip ''0 -r1 0 -J 0 {a ''b II7 s" ®J� I i N rIf -r-4 rIs N r-{ i17 0) 1.4 US 0 -� t9 QI *CS Qsi p+ ) W -r'1 to UI IA 2 • -1-) - Q1 rd a1 [� [a "t3 a1 td U 0 al rd 0 r- 4 FIs ti) 0 :-I ua .1 9, tr 0 1� 'ti .Q . rd - U] r• Oi -r ( )- O 3 -ri -ri A --1 O •ri 0 -r-1 4_41-1 $a to 0 0 4-i 0 - a1 J.) a > - 0 -LJ r --i —4 0 S~ 4- i, 0 0 >i 01 ''0 'r3 rd 0 O A X 1 0 0 a © 0 -1 a0 a) ar •-1 a) • 0 4) >1 a) a-1 a) s a) 4-1 o a) 0 00 00 - 01 -0 :; r-1 kJ j) It$ U f1r-ta C • ca ta 0 - 0 as d-- -0 ra rd 0 rd U rd - 1 - U) 0 ., a) 0 t0 P O 1-d U 0 ro • M *-t 4-I 0 0 C 6 JJ >1 tS' r I a1 a4 it a1 4- Q Rs 0 0 (!) N Z Z 4-4 r-1 a1 -r4 (U -r 1 Qi 0) ai fa, Cw 0 a1 0 0 td •J 0•-1U > Q •1-r4 0 R.D 0 -rt 0 2 -r-1 1 Ri 0 H • r -i iS .�" ' 't� Ti) i~ It 0) '0 u) 411 rR ▪ 0 f� +) a1 rn • a) In : a) -r4 0 4- 0 0 0 a1 rd Ill 4 0 -Q •4� 0 tT W to O rn 0 TCS Q -- r -i ?`� -'i Q O (0 -ri 't3 0 0 -P-I t r, 0 r~ • ri 4U rd a1 .0 a1 Ja r i -i-i a) 4-1 7, R -s-1 -r1 •*-1 Q4 [a � IA >, 0 C A U U1 rd 0 •-I >, 4-I r-1 0 to .1.Y 'CS r- 4 ti) 0 s; --1 0 -P 4--1 0 to C .1} (I] 4-1 rd rd 16+ A tl1 a) its 0 rd 15 .� 0 iD 4 in U] r� ...., 0 id 0 to -ri J-1 0 r-1 Gi 0 0 •4- "� 04.1 -,-1 rr C' rn -- ! ~ A CS a) > -1-) rd X fts U .r = •,-I •r 4 1-1 0 -r4 i O' rd • 1 a1 O -r-1 0 W a1 4) CO d) r-1 0 4-r U 0 0 t". ri W r -I -r1 3 14 OD 4-1 01 tS tf1 N RS 0. 0 - E 0 .4-I r1} 2 ( - U is --1 - CJ t3 41} a1 '0 to 04 • O. a1 a) (I) t) f -I a1 3 Cr) a1 (0 •ri :0 a1 • 1 fd �J fa 0' U1 4 •P -'-I 4 -r1 •-I 2 £1 0 a) t a) a'} 4-1 4 .0 M ---I 2 0 • 473 't3 4- U1 Mr -4 U7 ,-11 I 0 4-4 ''0 4-1 -P A 4-1 4-)a1 3 ai , A o o ro Ia g E. to 0 b o w 4 a) a] >4 to iv f`I 0 4 I e -I r -I f1 41 '0 a W -HH N -1:1 al W Id t) 1-I -i�1 0 +-1 a1 t) 4- - - 0 a) 0 _ j 4E ° .- < -0141 0 •0 rid ra 0 it 0 V) to > !-"-1 0 0 a) N CL CU r7 % •ri it '�, ,Q --1 -r-I .4a 4J -ri N to 0 A .Q a) r -I � r°} -I o 0 , 1.{ •r-1 4.) 4-> 0 0 4) tb >r al Ri a1 - U) to Id (d (0 a) r -C 0 Z r4 0 D a "t5 -4- 0 •r1 -r1 s:4 0r 1 i 0 (d 411 a) > 0i 0 .r. rd 4 7C 7C !~ !� (D 0 .' O = rd > is G Q s� >~ 0 a) g Hai ai -ri --4 its fa) H E.4 •N •'-I H U + -r1 U Sincerely, • (303) 945-1004 FAX.(303) 945-5946 SGm SGIMIESEfi GORDON ME YEN ....MM ENGfNEET1S SURVEYORS 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2E Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 AprII 21, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Eastside Coal Company, Inc. P.Q. Box 161 Silt, Co. 81652 RE: Evaluation of Pavement Sections for 5 and 10 Year Design Dear Steve: Per your request, SGM has analyzed the proposed Eastside Coal Mine haul route for a design period of 5 and 10 years. The proposed haul road route consists of County Road 227, east on County Road 233 and north on County Road 237 to the mine. The analysis was done using the following base information: *The 1986 AASHTO Pavement Design Methodology *Chen Northern Falling Weight Defiectometer test results for the existing pavement and subgrade strengths. *Traffic counts by Garfield County (August/September 1990). Vehicle splits from Eastside Coal traffic counts. *Eastside Mine traffic was analyzed for a yearly haul tonnage of 20,000 tons/year. The following two scenarios were used: Scenario 1111 - 1/3 of the haul trucks at 80,000 Ib = 317/year 2/3 of the haul trucks at 68,000. Ib = 635/year Empty haul trucks at 30,000 lb = 952/year Scenario #2 - 100% of the haul trucks at 68,000 Ib = 1052/year Empty haul trucks at 30,000 Ib = 1052/year These scenarios were analyzed using only 1990 traffic and using 1990 traffic plus mine traffic for design periods of 5 and 10 years. The Chen -Northern FWD test results indicated a strength and depth for the existing asphalt and base course layers. In addition, subgrade strength values determined by the FWD testing were also used in this analysis. These values are shown in the enclosed Pavement Evaluation as the Structural Coefficient (SC) and Subgrade Moduli. As you can see from the Pavement Evaluation, both the 5 and 10 year design periods show that hauling coal will have a minimal affect on the roads. This makes sense because hauling 20,000 tons/year will add 2-3 loaded trucks to roads which currently see 3-7 semi trailer trucks per day. This analysis shows that over a five year period, mine traffic would require up to 0.1" of additional overlay above that required to maintain the road for just the existing traffic loads. At a 10 year design period, the addition of mine traffic would require up to 0.3" additional overlay above that required to maintain the road for just the existing traffic loads. The overlay depths shown in the Pavement Evaluation are raw output from the AASHTO 1986 program, for practical purposes these values would be rounded to 1/2" increments for construction purposes. Doing this basically negates any practical impact the additional mine traffic would have on the haul route with respect to additional overlay depths. '� Ill 1 f 1 1 1 r it S i I I: I I ISI it � x F 11 0 T.) a) m o E 1.1 CD, •— D tCf ra -0 a? — G) 0 C7 D a) ia L -0 lU "E ia N.0 co 00 0 N 'Z7 I i En co N c a) D 0 .7( .ro i7 ff) D — to a) fU . -a .0 C it r� D D = 1.., - 0 �, _ E 03 .: N a) L D N 4:0 m 0) .*. LG D C i 0 c L '+- 0 E vj y N E — al -0 N ,D a 0) ) D D N C Cm O = •> 0 N co i fl} .0 • cam r ~! iP1 — 0 L 1+ a) c-. is 0 U a) y L c - 0) an ari c lz'c5E R 4, •F-" C) U _ N [tf U C L 0 ^ - al ( c: tq .p+ to �' U Q .� Cfl 0 r.. --= L .- N < 2 CL E (11 L CO U Z • • • Tra1fie Ana lysIs (20000 T/yr) Estimated Daily Total Total Road Vehicle % 1990 ADT 2000 ADT Mina Traffic 10 yr. ADT 5 yr ADT (s) (c) (1,) (6%) (51) (60%) (d) a 227 Car 64 500 585 3 . 588 (353) 503 (302) PU 31 242 283 3 286 (172) 215 (147) SA 1 8 9 9 (6) 8 (5) DA 4 31 36 1 37 (22) 32 (19) ST 0 0 0 a a 233 Car 53 145 170 3 173 (104) 118 (89) PU 10 110 129 3 132 (79) 113 (68) SA 1 8 9 9 (6) 8 (5) DA 4 8 9 1 10 (6) 9 (6) ST 0 3 4 4+' (3+`) 3+• (2+•) 237 to Odin Dr. Car 50 364 426 3 429 (258) 367 (220) PU 40 321 376 3 376 (226) 324 (94) SA 3 22 26 26 (16) 22 (13) DA 2 15 18 1 19 (12) 16 (10) ST 1 7 8 8+• (5+6) 7+•(4+•) 237 N Car 43 112 106 124. 3 127 (76) 109 (66) of Odin Dr. PU 49 112 120 '140 3 143 (86) 123 (74) SA 2 5 ' 6 6 (4) 5 (3) DA 3 7 8 1 9 (6) 8 (5) ST 2 5 6 ° 6+a (4+') 5+'(3+') a - Two way traffic b - G1r, 91.7, Delivery Traffic reduced by % of coal produced c - 10 year growth [actor 157 d - Design lane carries 60% of ADT • Option A - 317 80K vehicles, 635 68K vehicles, 952 empty vehicles on return lane (per year) Option 13 - 1052 68K vehicles, 1052 return (per year) Design Lane carries 60% of non thine traffic and 1.00% of loaded mine trucks Syear 10 year CR 227 10/90 Condltlon from Chen=Northern PIVD Test D 18 Traffic Iosds : EX 78939 185696 2" Asphalt, SC 034 8" baso, SC - Site Specific EX + A 86128 200071 EX + 13 84760 197338 SW:wade Station SC (Base) Modullslrel) 0 0.14 17 1002 0.14 11 2603 0.14 13 3002 0.08 7 4001 0.07 7 4490 0.14 Five Year Design Ten Year Design 1990 19904-A. 1990+8 1990 1990+A 1990+13 0 0 0 003 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.22 01 0.87 0.93 0.92 0 0 0 0.53 06 0.58 224 232 2.29 3.06 3.13 3.12 2.41 2.52 249 3.26 333 3.32 0.76 0.84 0.82 1.55 1.62 1.61 CR 233 10/90 Condition from Chen -Northern FWD Test E 18 Traffic Loads: 2" Asphalt, SC 034 10" base, SC- Site Specific 5 year 10 year EX 56746 110317 EX + A 63935 150119 9.3( 4-13 62567 147382 Subgrndo Five Year Design Ten Year Design Station SC13aac Moduli ]tai 1950 1990+A 1990+E1 1990 1990+A 1990+8 0 0.14 16 0 0 0 0 0 o 1003 0.07 7 1.8 1.9 1.88 2.4 269 2.67 2000 0.09 7 13 1.4 L38 1.9 2.19 2,17 3901 0.14 12 0 - 0 0 0 4401 0.095 9 • 0.69 0.78 0.76 1.24 5024 0.14 15 0 0 0 0 1.52 0 0 1.5 0 CR237 10/90 Condition tram Chen -Northern FWD Testi 18 Traffic loads: 2" Asphalt, SC = 034 8" base, SC - Sita Specific 5 year 10 year 5 year 10 year 2375 EK 129884 318661 237N 45229 117277 EX 4- A 137073 333010 ex +A 52419 131655 EX -1-13 135704 330303 Ea + l3 51050 128919 Subgrnde Five Year DesIgo Tea Year Design Station SC (Base) Moduli ((Lel) 1990 1990+A 1990#-13 1990 1990+A 1990+13 0 0.11 1S 0 0 0 0.5 0.59 0.58 801 0.11 5 1.84 1.98 1.95 2.79 2.91 2.89 1603 0.14 17 0 0 0 0.46 0S 0.49 24 0 0.09 _ 11 1.56 1.6 L6 2.36 2.4 2.39 Overlay I)enths In inches Station referenced from Chen -Northern FWD Report SC - Structural Coefficient 34 - N: {13 5 _ cJ 11 s• ifi ,02 •Ls.: _ _ co --- . t. ..,—, ..= •.",—o... E cp CD 0 0 L> = Cq 0 o co a) a) Etc ma 67. E ''.' • ,MININNION • ENCdNEERS sun YEMRS (303) 945-1004 scuMursER 1001 Grand Avenue, Suile 2E FAX GORDONEVEn ( 945.5948 Glenwood Springs, COB 1601 April 29, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Eastside Coal Co. P.Q. Box 161 Silt, Co. 81652 FIE: Analysis of Mine Haul Road Using 100% 80,000 lb. Haul Vehicles Dear Steve: At your request 1 have analyzed a third scenario of using 100% 80,000 Ib vehicles to haul 20,000 tons of coal/year from the Eastside Coal Mine over the proposed haul route. This scenario results in using 800 trucks/year to haul 20,000 tons/year. This equates to the following equivalent single axle Toads (ESAL's) for each design life, also included are figures for the fist two scenarios for comparison: 5 Year Design 10 Year Design Scenario A 7189 14,378 Scenario E3 5821 11,641 80,000 ib trucks 9276 18,552 in addition, I analyzed the 80,000 lb truck scenario with respect to the affect it will have on the existing roadway. in this case I analyzed the affect at station 1003 on C.R. 233. i selected C.R. 233 because it carries the least traffic of the three roads and selected Station 1003 because it was the weakest point in the road analyzed by Chen - Northern. This results in the area that would be most affected by the truck traffic. This was apparent in the study of scenarios A & B previously. Summarized below is the required overlay depth in inches for the respective design life, included is the overlay depths generated from the previous analysis for comparison: Existing Traffic Scenario A Scenario B 80,000 lb trucks 5 Year Design 10 Year Design 1 80" 11.990" 1.88" 1.92" 2.40" 2.69" 2.67„ 2.72" As you can see from the above table, the impact of using 100% 80,000 lb vehicles is not. significant for practical purposes. During construction, these overlay depths would be rounded to 1/2" increments. Therefore, a five year design overlay would be a 2" depth and a 10 year design overlay would be a 2 1/2" depth for the four situations. From a traffic standpoint, there will be fewer trucks on the road by using larger tr ucks. ƒ " 0 0 Jo \ { 7 / o,a \ _ % 0 CC - 0 * u 0 = = w 0 m 2 to ° 3 _ . 2 o ' // E 6. 0 o — @ co \ / _ c cra.%�2 % 9 0 - / 2 w /- 0 a 01 0 0 ° [I; 0 o m 0 / . _ / cn / ABR/►5 • • • May 5, 1993 • • EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Commissioners: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit to conduct underground coal mining operations in Section 19 of T5S R91W and Sections 23 and 24 in T5S R92W, Garfield County, Colorado, in compliance with the approved Colorado Mining and Reclamation Permit and Garfield County requirements. Eastside Coal Company originally permitted the mine for a production level of 200,000 tons per year in 1985. The term of that permit was five years. During that time Eastside Coal Company pursued a market for the coal outside of the local area, and is still attempting to develop that market. This special use Permit Application is for the life of the mine at a production level of 20,000 tons per year as long as the mine is operated in compliance with State, Federal, and County Performance Standards and conditions of the permits. The Special Use Permit Application has addressed items which are in the following Sections in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution dated January 2, 1979: 3.00 Zone District Regulations 3.02 Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density 3.02.03 Special Use 3.02.04 Minimum Lot Area 3.02.05 Maximum Lot Coverage 3.02.06 Minimum Setback 3.02.07 Maximum Height of Buildings 5.00 Supplementary Regulations 5.03 Conditional and Special Uses 5.03.07 Industrial Operations 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards 5.03.10 Approval of Special Use 5.03.11 Denial of Special Use 5.03.12 Access Routes • • • • page two of letter to Cty Comm May 5,1993 9.00 Administrative Procedures 9.01 Permit 9.01.01 Applications 9.03 Permit -Special Use 9.03.01 Application 9.03.02 Fee 9.03.05 Periodic Review The impact statements required by 5.03.07 are a part of and included with this Special Use Application. If you require additional copies of the impact statement for your review as per Section 5.03.07(1) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution adopted January 2, 1979, please let me know as we may expedite the review process. The original application submitted on February 19, 1993 is the application being submitted with the following changes being inserted. 1. New drawing titled "Owners of Record" to be inserted in Appendix A, Maps. 2. Revised map titled "Special Use Vicinity Map" to replace the existing map in Appendix A, Maps. 3. Revised page 5 of the application. 4. Place legal description "Book 627 Page 874" behind Memorandum of Lease in Appendix C. Replace old "Harvey Gap Property" with "Legal Description of Special Use Permit Area". 5. New "Legal Description for Purposes of Notification to be inserted in Appendix B. 6. Revised list of "Adjacent Landowner" to replace the existing list in Appendix B 7. Revised Page 3 of the application. Thank you for the consideration of the Special Use Permit Application. Eastside Coal Company wants to keep the lines of communication open to obtain approval of a special Use Permit. If your staff has any questions we would appreciate a call or letter and we will respond in a timely manner. Sincerely, Stephen SelK • General Manager SS/11 Enclosures • • • • • 9.03 Permit -Special Use 9.03.01 Application 9.03.02 Fee 9.03.05 Periodic Review The Special Use Permit is for a planned production level of 20,000 tons per year. The evaluation of the impacts and industrial performance standards are based on the maximum production level of 20,000 tons per year. Eastside Coal Company has the right to mine coal under the coal lease, dated the 15th of October, 1982, between Helen Christine "Nell" Eldridge, individually and as designated trustee of an irrevocable trust and Western Associated Energy Corporation. Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Associated Energy Corporation. Pertinent copies of the lease and letter authorizing Eastside Coal Company to obtain the Special Use Permit are enclosed in Appendix C: Correspondence. (2) A vicinity map drawn to scale depicting the subject property, location of roads providing access to the subject property, location and use of buildings and structures on adjacent lots and the names of owners of record of such lots. A Vicinity Ma._; (Scale 1" = 1,000') is enclosed in Appendix A. The map shows the property for which the Special Use is requested and location of access to the property. The owners of record of the adjacent properties are shown on the Owners of Record Drawing and are listed in Appendix B. (3) A letter to the County Commissioners from the applicant explaining in detail the nature and character of the Special Use requested. A copy of the transmittal letter explaining the nature and character of the Special Use requested for the area is enclosed in Appendix C: Correspondence. 9.03.02 Fee A fee of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) shall be charged for each application; with the exception of uses as industrial operations as defined in Section 5.03.07 of this Zoning Resolution in which case a fee of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) shall be charged for each application. A fee of fiv•, hundred dollars (S500.00) is enclosed with this Special Use ?:.plication, • Legal Description Special Use Permit Area • • Township 5 South, Section 19: Section 29: Section 30: Township 5 South, Section Section Section Section HARVEY GAP PROPERTY Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. S1/2 NW1/4, N1/2 SW1/4, and S1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. N1/2 NW1/4 23: NE1/4 NE1/4 24: All 25: NW1/4 NE1/4 and 26: NE1/4 NE1/4 Except the tracts of land numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 as more particularly described in certified copy of Order, Rule, Judgment and Decree in condemnation recorded in Book 321 at Page 270, Reception No. 207196 on October 28, 1959 in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, containing 2.92 acres, more or less. Except a tract of land 300 feet by 700 feet in said Section 24 as particularly described in deed recorded in Book 25 at Page 239 of the Garfield County records containing 4.82 acres more or less, containing 1153.00 acres, more or less. • • • • • Legal Description for Purposes of Notification Township 5 South, Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. Section 21: S1SW4 Section 28: NNW containing 160 acres, more or less. Township 5 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. Section 17: NE4NE4 Except a tract of land containing 6.77 acres described in a deed dated January 12, 1939, document No. 134629 in Book 192 at Page 376 County records. containing 33 acres, more or less. Township 5 South, Section 19: Section 29: Section 30: Township 5 South, Section Section Section Section Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. S;NW4, NSW and the SSE4 NW*NW4 NE4-,NE4 Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. 23: NE4 NE4 24: All 25: NW4NE4 and the NNW 26: NE4NE4 as particularly and recorded as of the Garfield Except the tracts of land numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 as more particularly described in certified copy of Order, Rule, Judgment and Decree in condemnation recorded in Book 321 at Page 270, Reception No. 207196 on October 28, 1959 in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, containing 2.92 acres, more or less. Except a tract of land 300 feet by 700 feet in said Section 24 as particularly described in deed recorded in Book 25 at Page 239 of the Garfield County records containing 4.82 acres more or less, containing 1153.00 acres, more or less. • • • • • Adjacent Landowners SEE "OWNERS OF RECORD DRAWING" Parcel Number 001 Santos Rando, Jr. 301 E. 6th Street Friona, TX 79035 002 Loras E. Ploehn and Kathleen S. Miller 2287 Odin Drive Silt, CO 81652-9554 003 Robert and Laureen A. Gutierrez 2209 Odin Drive Silt, CO 81652 004 Wayne W. and Mary F. Odell P.O. Box 901 Silt, CO 81652 005 Ronald and Janet West 2055 Odin Drive Silt, CO 81652 006 Joyce Nabors 2009 Odin Drive Silt, CO 81652 007 Arloa and Neil R. Meyers 326 332 Road Palisade, CO 81526 008 Farmers Irrigation Ditch Company P.O. Box 216 Silt, CO 81652 009 Bureau of Land Management Glenwood Springs Resource Area 50629 U.S. Highway 6 & 24 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 010 Charles Becker 589 332 Road Clifton, CO 81652 011 Helen "Nell" Eldridge, Trustee P.O. Box 585 El Centro, CA 92245 012 John C. Salvucci 5050 Gancho Atascondero, CA 93 422 • • • • • Adjacent Landowners continued 013 Charles R. and Grace L. Pender 51899 W. Satol Road Maricopa, AZ 85239 014 Hanjoerg Froeschle 2461 Odin Drive Silt, CO 81652 015 Colorado and Utah Land Co. P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, Co 81002 016 Lloyd D. and Carol D. Wilson 10986 Alta Sierra Drive Grass Valley, CA 95949 017 Don F. and Hollis L. Cameron 411 McCarron Avenue Rifle, CO 81650 • • • • • 9. 00 Admi ni s t r a t i'v e P r oc ed u r e a 9.01 Permit 9.01.01 Applications All permit applications shall be filed by the owner or owners of the subject lot with the Building Official on a form provided by the Building Official for this purpose and shall include a map drawn to scale and drawings showing: (1) Information sufficient to locate the subject lot on the assessor's records and zone district maps of the County, including reference to the particular block and lot location when such lot is located within a subdivision; The location of the property upon which Eastside Coal Company is requesting a Special Use Permit is shown on the Special Use Vicinity Map located in Appendix A. The Garfield County parcel numbers assigned to the area covered in the Special Use Permit are 2127-242-00-096 and 2127-231-00-097. Copies of the assessors maps are included in Appendix A. The area covered under this Special Use Permit is not located within a subdivision. (2) The subject lot with actual dimensions. calculations of lot area and contours or sections as necessary to support lot slope determinations; The Permit Area dimensions are shown on the Special Use Vicinity Map in Appendix A. The total area calculated from the legal description and Permit Area dimensions is 830 acres more or less. Contours to support lot slope determinations are shown on the Contour Map, 1" = 200', located in Appendix A. (3) Location, dimension. area and use of all existing proposed buildings and structures sufficiently detailed to determine if the proposed building or structure is in compliance with applicable provisions of this Resolution. including those covering use, lot area, lot coverage, floor area ratio, setback and height provisions of the applicable Zone District Regulation: The existing buildings are: Office, bathhouse, shop and generator shed. The footprints of the buildings , with dimensions, are shown on the Surface Facilities Map located in Appendix A. The Zone District Regulations are discussed in Section 3.00, pages 7 through 8. (4) plans. elevations, sections and details of proposed buildings or structures. sufficiently detailed to determine if the proposed building or structure is in compliance with applicable building, plumbing and electrical codes: 3 May 1993 Br"62? rine87',4 fLDRIDG;E COAL PROPERTY Parcel A - fiur.niag__Mountain Property Township 5 South, Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. Section 21: SIISWrr Section 28: NIINWk containing 160 acres, more or less. Parcel R - Haas Property Township 5 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. Section 17: NE4NF' Except a tract of land containing 6.77 acres as partic- ularly described in deed dated January 12, 1939, and recorded as Document No. 134629 in Book 192 at Page 376 of the Garfield County records. containing 33 acres, more or less. Parcel C - Harvey Gap Property. Township 5 South, Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. Section 19: SIINWk, ASW' and the S1/4SE4 Section 29: N ANWA Section 30: NE4NE4 Township 5 South, Range 92 W'st of the 6th P.M. Section 23: NEkNE4 Suction 24: All Section 25: NWkNE' and the N!NWti Section 26: NE1/4NE4 Except the tracts of land numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 as more particularly described in certified copy of Order, Rule, Judgment and Decree in condemnation recorded in Book 321 at Page 270, Reception No. 207196 on October 2B, 1959 in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, containing 2.92 acres, more or less. Except a tract of }.and 300 feet by 700 feet in said Section 24 as particularly described IN deed recorded in Book 25 at Page 239 of the Garfield County records containing 4.82 acres more or less, containing 1153.00 ac:_es, more or less. Parcel D - Federal Lease Federal Lease issued by the United States of America, Coal Lease hearing Serial N. 043937 with amendments covering the following described property, to -wit: Township G South, Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. Section 19: Lot 1, 1,1 F; NW3; Tow.rship 5 South, Range 92 West cif the 6th P.M. Sr^ti.jn 13: containing 120,25 acres, r:::,re ,.r lees. • • PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Eastside Coal Company, Inc. has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant Special Use Permit approval in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: Legal Description: S1/2NW1/4, NI/SSW'/a. Section 19, T5S, R91W. All of Section 24 and NEI/4NEA Section 23, T5S, R92W Except the tracts of land in Section 24, T5S, R92W numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 recorded in Book 321, page 270 and a tract of land located in Section 24, T5S, R92W 300 feet by 700 feet recorded in Book 25, page 239 of the Garfield County Records. Practical Description: A tract of land located approximately 3 miles north of Silt, off of County Road 237. Said Special Use Permit is for Extraction, Processing and Material Handling of Natural Resources in the A/R/RD Zone District. Specifically, the Special Use Permit would allow the applicant to extract, process, store and handle up to 20,000 tons of coal a year for sale to the public. All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such Special Use Permit as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the requested Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The public hearing on the application for the above Special Use Permit is set for the 3rd day of May, 1993, at the hour of 3:00 P.M. in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Suite 301, Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Planning Department Garfield County • • EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.Q. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 21, 1993 Sent by Certified Mail P 398 435 497 Charles Becker 0670 266 Road Silt, Colorado 81652 Dear Mr. Becker: At the Garfield County Commissioners meeting May 3, 1993 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is manning to request a continuance to the May 17, 1993 Garfield County commissioners meeting. Stephen Sel. General Manager SS/11 Enclosure: Public Notice • ABR. EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P0. Box 161 Silt„ Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 21, 1993 Sent by Certified Mail P 398 435 496 Helen "Nell" Eldridge, Trustee P.O. Box 585 El Centro, California 92243 Dear Mrs. Eldridge: At the Garfield County Commissioners meeting Mav 3, 1993 Eastside Coal ComDany, Inc. is planning to request a continuance to the May 17, 1993 Garfield County commissioners meeting. Sincerely, Stephen Self General Manager SS/11 Enclosure: Public Notice • EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. I'.O. Box 161 Sill, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 21, 1993 Sent by Certified Mail P 398 435 495 Helen "Nell" Eldridge, Trustee c/o Petre Law Office P.O. Box 400 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Mrs. Eldridge: At the Garfield County Commissioners meeting May 3. 1993 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is Dlannina to request a continuance to the May 17, 1993 Garfield County commissioners meeting. Sincerely, Stephen S General Manager SS/11 Enclosure: Public Notice ABR EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Sill, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 21, 1993 Sent by Certified Mail P 398 435 494 Farmers Irrigation Ditch Company P.J. Box 216 Silt, Colorado 81652 Dear Mr. Pretti: At the Garfield County Commissioners meeting May 3, 1993 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is planning to request a continuance to the May 17, 1993 Garfield County commissioners meeting. Sincerely, Stephen Sel General Manager SS/11 Enclosure: Public Notice AER EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.D. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 21, 1993 Sent by Certified Mail P 398 435 493 John Salvucci 5050 Gancho Atascadero, California 43422 Dear Mr. Salvucci: At the Garfield Countv Commissioners meeting May 3, 1993 Easst _,1 de Coal Company, Inc. is planning to request a continuance to the May 17, 1993 Garfield Countv commissioners meeting. Sincerely, Stephen Se General Manager SS/11 Enclosure: Public Notice • EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.D. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 Apri l 21, 1993 Sent by Certified Mail P 398 435 492 Bureau of Land Management Glenwood Springs Resource Area 50629 U. S. Highway 6 & 24 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sir: At the Garfield County Commissioners meeting May 3, 1993 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is planning to request a continuance to the May 17, 1993 Garfield County commissioners meeting. Sincerely, Stephen S General. Manager Enclosure: Public Notice • EASTSIDB COAL COMPANY, INC. PC). Box 161 Sill, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-944 April 21, 1993 Sent by Certified Mail P 398 435 491 John Salvucci 2000 County Road 237 Silt, Colorado 81652 Dear Mr. Salvucci At the Garfield County Commissioners meeting May 3, 1993 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is planning to request a continuance to the May 17, 1993 Garfield County commissioners meeting. Sincerely, Stephen Self General Manager Ss/11 Enclosure: Public Notice ABR • EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. RD. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 April 30, 1993 Sent by Certified Mail P 478 667 797 Charles J. Becker 589 33i Road Clifton, Colorado 81520 Dear Mr. Becker: At the Garfield County Commissioners meeting May 3, 1993 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is planning to request a continuance to the May 17, 1993 Garfield County commissioners meeting. Sincerely, Stephen Se General Manager SS/1] Enclosure: Public Notice • EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box I61 Silt, Colorado 81652 (3(11) 876.2944 April 30, 1993 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: &ig\ APR 5 n 1993 GARF=IFLD COUNTY The enclosed information is in response to the comments from Mark Bean to the Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Commissioners and Eastside Coal Company; In Part V. Recommendations, the following statements were made: (1) That all road improvements and safety improvements necessary to improve CR 227, CR 233, and CR 237 to provide a safe and convenient access to the mine be completed prior to issuance of a Special Use permit. The engineering evaluations of the required asphalt thickness for the existing 1990 traffic and the additional traffic generated by Eastside Coal based on three different scenarios are as follows: Scenario 1 - 1/3 of coal haul trucks at 80,000 lbs gross weight and 2/3 of coal haul trucks at 68,000 lbs gross weight. Scenario 2 - 100% of the coal haul trucks at 68,000 lbs gross weight. Scenario 3 - 100% of the coal haul trubks at 80,000 lbs gross weight. The 1990 analysis of the existing road structure at the weakest station as measured by Chen -Northern with a Failing Weight Deflectometer indicates an asphalt mat of 1.80 inches would be required to carry the 1990 traffic volume based on a five year design. The additional traffic generated by Eastside Coal with the haul trucks gross weight at 80,000 lbs requires 1.92 inches of asphalt mat. The asphalt mat is placed in ' inch increments so the difference between 1.80 and 1.92 inches of asphalt is minimal - both. existing traffic alone and with the addition of the mine traffic • • page 2 of letter 04-30-93 - Garfield County Commissioners under all three scenarios would require 2.00 inches of asphalt mat, based on a five year life. The impact of the traffic generated by Eastside Coal on the existing roads can only be measured against the impacts of existing traffic. From the calculations stated above, the impacts from the Eastside Mine are not significant over the impacts from the existing traffic. Relative to the stated need to "provide a safe and convenient access," Eastside Coal is proposing, based on its own road safety analysis, to install signs along the haul route as designated in the enclosed maps "Proposed County Road Signs" Sheets 1-8. The above information shows the requirements of Statement (1) have been met (2) The applicant demonstrate that the existing individual sewage or disposal system is properly sized to meet the needs of the mine or construct an ISDS that is approved by the County. The septic system installed in the 1970's has been functioning trouble-free since the existing office and bathhouse tied into it in 1983. (3) Prior to issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant submit a letter from the RE -2 School District confirming the current school bus schedule. The letter from RE -2 School District was submitted to Garfield County April 16, 1993. Another copy is enclosed. The original Special Use Application and this supplemental information shows that the operation proposed by Eastside Coal Company complies with all the County, State, and -Federal Regulations required for a Special Use Permit. Sincerely, e•hen _Se_, f General Manager SS/11 Enclosures - RE -2 letter, maps (303) 945-1004 • _ ENGINEERS • SURYCYMRS sGM SCIIMUESER 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2E FAx.(303) 945-5948 GORDON MEYER Glenwood Springs, CO 81501 April 21, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Eastside Coal Company, Inc. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Co. 81652 RE: Evaluation of Pavement Sections for 5 and 10 Year Design Dear Steve: Per your request, SGM has analyzed the proposed Eastside Coal Mine haul route for a design period of 5 and 10 years. The proposed haul road route consists of County Road 227, east on County Road 233 and north on County (load 237 to the mine. The analysis was done using the following base information: •The 1986 AASHTO Pavement Design Methodology *Chen Northern Falling Weight Deflectometer test results for the existing pavement and subgrade strengths. *Traffic counts by Garfield County (August/September 1990). Vehicle splits from Eastside Coal traffic counts. •Eastside Mine traffic was analyzed for a yearly haul tonnage of 20,000 tons/year. The following two scenarios were used: Scenario #1 1/3 of the haul trucks at 80,000 Ib = 317/year 2/3 of the haul trucks at 68,000 Ib = 635/year Empty haul trucks at 30,000 lb = 952/year Scenario #2 -- 100% of the haul trucks at 68,000 ib = 1052/year Empty haul trucks at 30,000 lb = 1052/year These scenarios were analyzed using only 1990 traffic and using 1990 traffic plus mine traffic for design periods of 5 and 10 years. The Cheri -Northern FWD test results indicated a strength and depth for the existing asphalt and base course layers. In addition, subgrade strength values determined by the FWD testing were also used in this analysis. These values are shown in the enclosed Pavement Evaluation as the Structural Coefficient (SC) and subgrade Moduli. As you can see from the Pavement Evaluation, both the 5 and 10 year design periods show that hauling coal will have a minimal affect on the roads. This makes sense because hauling 20,000 tons/year will add 2-3 loaded trucks to roads which currently see 3-7 semi trailer trucks per day. This analysis shows that over a five year period, mine traffic would require up to 0.1" of additional overlay above that required to maintain the road for just the existing traffic loads. At a 10 year design period, the addition of mine traffic would require up to 0.3" additional overlay above that required to maintain the road for just the existing traffic loads. The overlay depths shown in the Pavement Evaluation are raw output from the AASHTO 1986 program, for practical purposes these values would be rounded to 1/2" increments for construction purposes. Doing this basically negates any practical impact the additional mine traffic would have on the haul route with respect to additional overlay depths. April 21, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Page 2 Finally, seasonal variations in road strength due to freeze/thaw cycles and subgrade moisture in the spring is a problem with the existing road. The additional mine traffic will affect the road during these periods to the same degree at which it affects the roads during the "summer" type period which was analyzed. In addition, the additional mine traffic will affect the roads to the same degree in the winter when the roads are at their strongest. The bottom line is the additional mine traffic is not significant when compared to the existing traffic on these roads. Also enclosed is the traffic information used for this analysis. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, SCIdNMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dan Oakley, E.I.T. Encl. cc: Dave Sturges DC/ja92048.3 SCI-IMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. • Traffic Analysis (20000 T/yr) Patimated Daily Total Total Road Vehicle % 1990 ADT 2000 ADT Mine Traffic 10 yr. ADT 5 yr ADT 227 Car 64 (a){c) (b) (609) (d) (60%) (`d) 500 585 3 588 (353) 503 (302) PU 31 242 283 3 286 (172) 245 (147) SA I 8 9 9 (6) 8 (5) DA 4 31 36 1 37 (22) 32 (19) ST 0 0 0 • 233 Car 53 145 PU 40 110 SA 1 DA 4 ST 0 8 8 170 3 173 (104) 148 (89) 129 3 132 (79) 113 (68) 9 9 (6) 8 (5) 9 1 10 (6) 9 (6) 4 4+' (3+1 3+' (2+') 237 to Odin Dr. Car 50 364 42.6 3 429 (258) 367 (220) P13 40 321 376 3 376 (226) 324 (94) SA 3 22 26 26 (16) 22 (13) DA 2 15 18 1 19 (12) 16 (10) ST 1 7 8 8+' (5+') 7+'(4+') 23714 Car 431/2 105 124 3 127 (76) 109 (66) of Odin Dr. PU 49 1/2 120 140 SA 2 5 3 143 (86) 123 (74) 6 6 (4) 5 (3) DA 3 7 8 1 9 (6) 8 (5) ST 2 5 6 ° 6+' (4+') 5+'(3.i-1 - Two way uaffic b - Car, PU, Delivery Traffic reduced by % of coal produced c - 10 year growth factor = 1-17 d - Design lane carries 60% of ADT ' Option A - 317 8011 vehicles, 635 68K vehicles, 952 empty vehicles on return lane (per year) Option 8 - 105268K vehicles, 1052 return (per year) Design Lane carries 60% of non mine traffic and 100% of loaded mine truck CR 227 10/90 Condition from Clrcn=Northern FWD Test E 18 Traffic loads 1 EX 5 year ZO year 2' Asphalt, SC = 0348" base, SC Site Specific 78939 00 EX + A 86128 2000747 EX + 13 84760 197338 Subgrade Five Year Design Ten Tear Desi gn Station SC (Base) Moduli (ksi) 1990 1990+A 1990+8 199D1990+A 1990 0 0 0.14 17 0 +8 1002 0 0 0.03 0.09 0.08 a14 11 0.15 0.22 0.2 0.87 0.93 0.92 7403 0.14 13 0 0 0 3902 0.08 7 124 0.53 958 2.32 229 3.06 3.13 3.12 4001 0.07 7 2.44 2.52 149 3.26 333 3.32 4490 0.14 8 0.76 0.84 0.82 155 262 1.61 CR 233 10/90 Condition from Chen -Northern FWD Teat E 18 Traffic Loads: 2" Asphalt, SC = 03410" base, SC- Site. Specific 5 year 10 year E$ 56746 110347 EJC + A 63935 150119 EX + B 62567 147382 Su bgrade Five Year Design Ten Year Design Station SC (Base) Moduli (Its!) 1990 1990 -A 1990+B 1990 0 0.14 26 0 1990+A 1990+B 03 9 0 0 0 0 10030.07 7 1.8 L9 1.88 2.4 2.69 267 2000 0.09 7 13 I.4 138 29 2.19 217 3001 014 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 4001 0.095 9 0.69 078 0.76 1.2¢ 5024 014 15 0 150 1.5 0 0 0 0 9 CR237 10/90 Condition from Chen -Northern FWD Test E 18 Traffic loads: ?Asphalt, SC = 0.34 8• base, SC - Site Specific 5 year 10 year 5 year 10 year 2375 EX 129884 318661 23714 45229 1174// EX + A 137073 333040 E3f+A 52419 I31655 EX+B 135704 330303 Ex + B 51050 128919 Subgrade Five Year Design Ten Year Desi Station (Base) Moduli (ksi) 1990 1990+A 1990+8 1990 1990+A 1990+8 0 0.1115 0 0 0 0.5 0.59 058 801 0.11 5 1.84 1.98 1.95 2.79 2.91 289 1603 0.14 17 0 0 0 0.46 1_56 2.4 1149 2400 0.09 11 1.6 1a5 2.36 2.4 239 Overlay Depths in inches Station referenced from Clsen-Northern FWD Report SC- Structural Coefficient sGM ENCWNEEAS SURVEYORS (303) 945-1004 SCHMUESER 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2E FAX (303) 945-5948 GORDON MEYEA Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 April 29, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Eastside Coal Co. P.C. Box 161 Silt, Co. 81652 RE: Analysis of Mine Haul Road Using 100% 80,000 ib. Haul Vehicles Dear Steve: At your request 1 have analyzed a third scenario of using 100% 80,000 1b vehicles to haul 20,000 tons of coal/year from the Eastside Coal Mine over the proposed haul route. This scenario results in using 800 trucks/year to haul 20,000 tons/year. This equates to the following equivalent single axle Toads (ESAL's) for each design life, also included are figures for the first two scenarios for comparison: 5 Year Design 10 Year Design Scenario A 7189 14,378 Scenario B 5821 11,641 80,000 Ib trucks 9276 18,552 in addition, 1 analyzed the 80,000 Ib truck scenario with respect to the affect it will have an the existing roadway. in this case I analyzed the affect at station 1003 on C.R. 233. I selected C.R. 233 because it carries the least traffic of the three roads and. selected Station 1003 because it was the weakest point in the road analyzed by Chen - Northern. This results in the area that would be most affected by the truck traffic. This was apparent in the study of scenarios A & B previously. Summarized below is the required overlay depth in inches for the respective design life, included is the overlay depths generated from the previous analysis for comparison: Existing Traffic Scenario A Scenario B 80,000 lb trucks 5 Year Design 10 Year Design 1.80" 1.90" 1.88" 1.92" 2.40" 2.69" 2.67" 2.72" As you can see from the above table, the impact of using 100% 80,000 lb vehicles is not significant for practical purposes. During construction, these overlay depths would be rounded to 1/2" increments. Therefore, a five year design overlay would be a 2" depth and a 10 year design overlay would be a 2 1/2" depth for the four situations. From a traffic standpoint, there will be fewer trucks on the road by using larger trucks. April 29, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Page 2 In conclusion, the use of 80,000 lb trucks to haul coal will not have a significant impact on the road, when compared to the previous scenarios or the existing traffic loads. Please call if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, SCHMUESEIR GORDON MEYER, INC. Dan Oakley, E.I.T. DC/090248A SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. -(7Zsr..euqw. .axe/4 - Yo/uvq.iitevide/il April 13, 1993 Eastside Coal P.O. Box 161 SIR, CO 81652 Dear Sirs: Yeetzvenc.e, g. - SSG:ace/a Ality4;14ve.cie.1.4 Please accept this letter as my continued agreement to the previous arrangement made concerning the joint use of county road 237 and Highway 6 & 24. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact my office at 625- 3306. Sincerely, Transportation Director 144 GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601.3303 Telephone .(303) 945-9150 Fax No. (303) 945-7785 April 30, 1993 Mr. John Spangler 1823 Harvey Gap Road Silt, Colorado 81652 Dear Mr. Spangler: In response to your April 20, 1993 letter, the following comments address the questions asked: 1. Public meetings of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County and the Planning and Zoning Commission are deliberations of those governmental bodies at which public attendance must be permitted. While the governmental bodies do not need to allow, permit or consider comments from the audience during those meetings, the general practice is to allow such an opportunity if time permits, and if a matter is properly being considered by the deliberative body. The decision whether or not to permit such comment by the audience is strictly within the control of the chairman of the deliberative body, although usually that decision is subject to review by the full membership of either the Board of County Commissioners or the Planning Commission. 2. The foregoing comments regarding participation by an audience at public meetings applies equally to the tendering of questions. The decision whether or not to permit such questions or allow response to such questions is within the discretion of the chairman, subject to the position of the members of the deliberative body. 3. Generally, Planning Commission meetingd are not public hearings and, therefore, are not quasi-judicial. The Board of County Commissioners meetings are frequently public hearings and quasi-judicial in nature. A public hearing is a formally noticed hearing at which testimony and evidence are entered into the record in a manner similar to a Court of law. Meetings do not require those formalities and frequently are not considered quasi-judicial in nature. 4. Public hearings (as distinguished from public meetings) are formalized evidentiary hearings at which input from the general public is not only permitted, but frequently required. The public participation, as well as the participation by all parties at a public hearing is subject to the control of the Board of County Commissioners, or specifically, the Chairman of that Board. That Hr. John Spangler April 30, 1993 Page 2 • • control is directed by the relevancy of the evidence, the inflammatory nature of the comments, redundancy of the questioning, responses or comments of witnesses. Under these limitations, the Chairman may control .both the time allotted to speakers, the subject matter discussed by speakers, and the exhibits admitted into evidence. 5. At a public meeting, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners or Planning and Zoning Commission may allow discussion of a properly seconded motion by members of the audience if the chairperson so desires. However, the chairperson is not required to permit such discussion. At a public hearing, the issue is not that clear. The better practice at a public hearing may be to invite comment by the audience as such comment relates specifically to the motion on the floor. It is not clear that the chairman at a public hearing is required to invite such comment. In summary, the public body holding a hearing or conducting a public meeting has a great deal of discretion as to how much input will be accepted from the audience in attendance. That discretion is much broader in regard to a public meeting. Technically, although not practically, the public body is not required to consider any public comment or participation at a public meeting. I must emphasize that, generally, the practice of both the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission have been to invite public participation at both public hearings and public meetings. In a similar manner, both Boards, in a general sense, have not permitted public participation in the course of motions made by parties to those hearings. Sincerely yours, DON K. DEFORD Garfield County Attorney DKD:vlm cc: Mark Bean Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County • GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8110 Sired, Sidle 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303 Telephone (303) 945-9150 Fax Nu. (303) 945-7785 MEMO TO: MARK BEAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DON K. DEFORD, COUNTY ATTORNEY RE: EASTSIDE COAL PROCEEDINGS DATE: April 29, 1993 • � {7AL ...'.if ''"`} ` 1993 On Monday, May 3, 1993, the special use permit application of the Eastside Coal Company will be presented for public hearing. The interplay between the time periods for hearings set forth in Chapters 5 and 9 of our Zoning Code present the Board of Commissioners with various choices in the manner in which they conduct this hearing. I would note that the Board has the following options: 1. If notification is proper, the Board must commence the public hearing. If notification has not been properly obtained, the Board cannot begin the public hearing and the process must be recommenced. 2. Assuming notification to be adequate, the Board then must, at a minimum, conduct a public hearing to determine whether or not the impact statement required by Section 5.03.07 satisfies the requirements of that section. The Board may also elect to consider all issues regarding the special use permit under the provisions of Section 9.03. 3. If the Board concludes that it desires the input of the Planning Commission resulting from the currently scheduled meeting of that Commission, the Board may proceed with the public hearing, render a decision concerning the impact statement, and then continue the public hearing to a date certain for further consideration of the application for a special use permit. 4. Any continued public hearing in this matter may be set at a time convenient to the parties and the public as the meeting was commenced within the sixty (60) day time period set forth under Section 9.03. 5. If the Board determines that the impact statement does not demonstrate that the proposed industrial operation complies with the requirements of Section 5.03.07, the Board may deny the 1 MARK BEAN PAGE TWO APRIL 29, 1993 request for a special use permit on that basis. That finding is not actually set forth in the regulation, but seems inherent in the language of the regulation. Additionally, the Board may determine that additional information is required to properly evaluate the proposed use and the impact statement. If that is the case, they may permit an additional forty-five (45) days to submit that information. Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, a continuance would be required which would exceed the sixty (60) day limitation of Section 9.03. Under earlier interpretations of that section, such a continuance could be permitted for a reasonable period of time, even though it exceeds that time period. I hope the foregoing addresses the procedural alternatives available to the Board, the applicant and the public. ©KD:mis cc: Steven J. Zwick, Asst. Co. Atty. Board of County Commissioners • • • GARFIELD COUNTY ATTORNEY MR. DON DEFORD 10'9 8TH STREET GLENiW00D SPRINGS, CO. 81602 APRIL 20, 1993 RE: PUBLIC MEETINGS DEAR MR. DEFORI)* AFTER ATTENDINI, THE APRIL 14, 1993 P&Z MEETING I FIND THAT I NEED SOME INFORMATION CONCERNING GARFIELD COUNTIES PUBLIC MEETINGS. COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 1. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN. THE GENERAL PUBLIC MAKE STATEMENTS n r rC E TINC.- 2. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC ASK QUESTIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS? 3. IS ONE TYPE OF MEETING DIFFERENT THAM! ANOTHER (P & 2 VS COMMISSIONERS) 4. ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD ONLY ASA COURTESY FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND 'IND LISTEN, BUT NOT TO PARTICIPATE? 5. IS THE GENERAL PUBLIC ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE DURING THE "DISCUSSION.' AFTER A MOTION IS MADE AND PRIOR TO ANY VOTE BY THE P & 2 OR THE COMMISSIONERS? I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT hHAVING A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE AND PROLEDURES FOR THE COUN I Y'S PUBLIC HEARINGS. HOPEFULLY , YOUR RESPONSE TO THESE QUESTIONS AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU COULD PROVIDE WILL HELP MAKE THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S PRESENCE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS LESS OF A WASTE OF TIME FOR ALL CONCERNED. SINCERELY JOHN SP'NGLER 1823 HARVEY GAG- R -AD SILT, COLORADO 31652 .?• GARFIELD COUNTY • f COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3.303 Telephone (303) 945-9150 Fax No. (303) 945-7785 M E M 0 TO: MARK BEAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DON K. DEFORD, COUNTY ATTORNEY RE: EASTSIDE COAL PROCEEDINGS DATE: April 29, 1993 lid.— w' SPR 3 r it,t 1993 ' On Monday, May 3, 1993, the special use permit application of the Eastside Coal Company will be presented for public hearing. The interplay between the time periods for hearings set forth in Chapters 5 and 9 of our Zoning Code present the Board of Commissioners with various choices in the manner in which they conduct this hearing. I would note that the Board has the following options: 1. If notification is proper, the Board must commence the public hearing. If notification has not been properly obtained, the Board cannot begin the public hearing and the process must be recommenced. 2. Assuming notification to be adequate, the Board then must, at a minimum, conduct a public hearing to determine whether or not the impact statement required by Section 5.03.07 satisfies the requirements of that section. The Board may also elect to consider all issues regarding the special use permit under the provisions of Section 9.03. 3. If the Board concludes that it desires the input of the Planning Commission resulting from the currently scheduled meeting of that Commission, the Board may proceed with the public hearing, render a decision concerning the impact statement, and then continue the public hearing to a date certain for further consideration of the application for a special use permit. 4. Any continued public hearing in this matter may be set at a time convenient to the parties and the public as the meeting was commenced within the sixty (60) day time period set forth under Section 9.03. 5. If the Board determines that the impact statement does not demonstrate that the proposed industrial operation complies with the requirements of Section 5.03.07, the Board may deny the MARK BEAN PAGE TWO APRIL 29, 1993 • • request for a special use permit on that basis. That finding is not actually set forth in the regulation, but seems inherent in the language of the regulation. Additionally, the Board may determine that additional information is required to properly evaluate the proposed use and the impact statement. If that is the case, they may permit an additional forty-five (45) days to submit that information. Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, a continuance would be required which would exceed the sixty (60) day limitation of Section 9.03. Under earlier interpretations of that section, such a continuance could be permitted for a reasonable period of time, even though it exceeds that time period. I hope the foregoing addresses the procedural alternatives available to the Board, the applicant and the public. DKD:mls cc: Steven J. Zwick, Asst. Co. Atty. Board of County Commissioners MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MARK BEAN DATE: APRIL 9, 1993 RE: ADDITIONAL EASTSIDE COAL CONSIDERATIONS Subsequent to the staff report being completed, some additional concerns and issues were identified, that the Planning Commission should consider: -The Eastside coal discharge permit has limitations that are imposed on the applicant in terms of water quality discharged. The discharges will go into the Farmer's Irrigation Co. ditch. There are no guarantees that should there be an unexpected hydrologic event causing the settling ponds to overflow and damage down ditch agricultural lands, the recourse is litigation through the courts. It has been suggested that the applicant be required to post security with the County, to guarantee nondegradation due to hydrologic event not considered in the design of the mine, allowing property owners to have the Board make a determination without going to court. -The application does not say where the coal is being hauled. Will there be any other County roads impacted? Will trucks to through any municipality? (303) 945-1004 FAX (303) 945-5948 • ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2E Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 March 22, 1993 Mr. Steve Self East Side Coal Company, Inc. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Co. 81652 RE: Re-evaluation of Pavement Sections Dear Steve: As we discussed, on the phone at the end of last week, I have revised the pavement analysis using the Chen -Northern Falling Weight Defiectometer test results for the existing pavement sections on the proposed haul road to the East Side Coal facility north of Silt. The proposed haul road route consists of County Road 227, east on County Road 233 and north on County Road 237 to the mine. Again, I analyzed the overlay depths required for a reduced yearly haul tonnage of 20,000 tons/year. In addition, as we discussed, I analyzed the impact of only the 1990 traffic plus the original two options that were analyzed: Option #1 - 1/3 of the haul trucks at 80,000 Ib = 317/year - 2/3 of the haul trucks at 68,000 Ib = 635/year Empty haul trucks at 30,000 Ib = 952/year Option #2 -- 100% of the haul trucks at 68,000 lb = 1052/year Empty haul trucks at 30,000 lb = 1052/year These options were analyzed with existing traffic and with mine traffic for a design period of 1 1/2 years. The Chen -Northern FWD test results indicated a strength and depth for the existing asphalt and base course layers. These values are shown in the enclosed Pavement Analysis printouts as the layer coefficient and layer thickness on the lower portion of the printouts. Summarized below are the result of the analysis; overlay depths required for the 1 1/2 year design life. 1990 Road Traffic Option #1 Option #2 CR 227 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" CR 233 3" 3" 3" CR 237 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 3-12' South of Mine CR 237 None None None At mine March 22, 1993 Mr. Steve Self Page 2 As you can see from the table, a year and a half of hauling coal will not require overlay depths greater than already needed to properly maintain the roads for existing traffic loadings. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dan Oakley, E.I.T. Encl. DC/ j a90248.2 SCFiMLIESER GORDON MEYER, IN • GARFIELD COUNTY REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL April 8, 1993 Mr. Stephen Self Eastside Coal Mine P.O. Box 161 Sill, CO 81652 RE: Special Use Permit - Coal Mine Dear Mr. Self. Your request for a Special Use Permit for the extraction, processing, storage and material handling of natural resources (coal mine), identified on the enclosed public notice form, has been scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on May 3, 1993 at 3:00 p.m., in the Commissioner's Meeting Room, Suite 301, Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. It is suggested that you be present at the hearing. A copy of the enclosed public notice should be submitted to the Citizen Telegram, for publication one time at least 15 days prior to the hearing, which would be the April 14, 1993 publication. You should contact the newspaper directly regarding obtaining the proof of publication and billing. In addition,copies ofthe public notice form must be mailed by certified return -receipt to all adjacent property owners no less than 5 days prior to the hearing. All mailings should be completed no later than April 28, 1993 to ensure compliance, although we recommend you send them earlier to ensure the receipt ofthe notice. The proof of publication from the newspaper of general circulation and return -receipt from the mailings must be submitted by the applicant at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please contact this office if you have further questions regarding your application of the public hearing. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Regulatory Offices and Personnel 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212f625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Eastside Coal Company, Inc. has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant. Special Use Permit approval in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: Legal Description: S1/2NW"/4, N'I2SW1I4 Section 19, T5S, R91W. All of Section 24 and NE1I4NEV4, Section 23, T5S, R92W Except the tracts of land in Section 24, T5S, R92W numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 recorded in Book 321, page 270 and a tract of land located in Section 24, T5S, R92W 300 feet by 700 feet recorded in Book 25, page 239 of the Garfield County Records. Practical Description: A tract of land located approximately 3 miles north of Silt, off of County Road 237. Said Special Use Permit is for Extraction, Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources in the A/R/RD Zone District. Specifically, the Special Use Permit would allow the applicant to extract, process, store and handle up to 20,000 tons of coal a year for sale to the public. All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such Special Use Permit as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the requested Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:0'0 p.m.., Monday through Friday. The public hearing on the application for the above Special Use Permit is set for the 3rd day of May, 1993, at the hour of 3:00 P.M. in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Suite 301, Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County B8 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1993 Abraxas Petroleum Corp. Company Buys Properties From Subsidiary of Mobil • Abraxas Petroleum Corp., more than doubling its production, said it completed., an acquisition of Texas oil and gas proper- ties from a unit of Mobil Corp. for $41 • million. The deal includes the Portilla and Sted- • man Island fields along the central Texas Gulf Coast. The purchase of the White Point East field, also included in the transaction, will be completed on or before May 3. Abraxas, based in San Antonio, Texas, paid for the acquisition with $16.5 million • from new credit facility, $21 million of a , 50% interest in a pension trust fund that re- ceives revenues from the properties, and corporate cash. The oil and gas exploration and produc- tion company estimates that production from its acquired interests in the proper- ties was about 700 barrels a day of oil and 3.4 million cubic feet of gas in 1992. This compares with Abraxas' actual production of about 520 barrels of oil and 1.4 million cubic feet of gas a day at year-end 1992. • FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER PAVEMENT TESTING RESULTS AND ENERGY COMPANY IMPACT ANALYSIS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 08 113 90 JUNE 5, 1991 PREPARED FOR MR. KING LLOYD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE SUPERVISOR GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO 1015 SCHOOL STREET PO BOX 2254 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 COPYRIGHT 1990, CHEN-NORTHERN Inc. DENVER, CO Cllcii ?North1Cl'n, Inc. rrrsndliru Erreprwar tinrrr6;Imo 'lists wells have been completed or are being fractured. It should also be pointed out that the impact analyses discussed below did not include estimates of truck traffic contributed by pipeline installation activities, and is, therefore, lenient in its estimation of impact. In any event, the amount of overlay increase and the reduction in life is strictly attributable to projected or assumed loads added to the baseline and does not depend on the amount of initial baseline loads to which those loads are added. (Projected well drilling activity for 1991 and 1992 provided by responses to a survey taken by 1 Garfield County was used with the figure for the total number of ESAL's generated by one average well calculated in the supporting calculation spreadsheet discussed below. The number of projected new wells were simply multiplied by that figure, 417 ESAL's per well, to obtain the number of total projected loads. An analysis was done to determine the most probable haul route into the proposed well sites given the County restrictions against heavy loads on some routes. Each well site may, therefore, generate loads over more than one County road. Only a five year future horizon period was used for this analysis, due to the uncertain nature of energy extraction activity. Because well activity was projected only for two years, the projections for 1991 and 1992 for each general well site were averaged and the average was used for the next three years of the five year analysis period. Without additional information forthcoming from the energy companies, it was felt this average was a valid estimate. 7 A separate analysis was done for portions of County Roads 237, 233, and 227 that would be i the proposed haul route, in and out of the East Side Coal Company open pit mine north of the f town of Silt. The coal company supplied their projections of 10, 80,000 pound, five axle I trucks per day, five days per week, for the first year of operation in 1991. Production would then be increased ' to 40 trucks per day, five days per week, for the succeeding years of its projected 20 year life. These figures converted to ESAL's were added to the baseline traffic l calculated for these roads. In discussions with Company representatives, mention was made l of the possibility of building some form of conveyance other than trucks to transport coal in the \ future. Therefore, analysis periods of five and ten years were used to determine impact '.,depending on when and if the alternate conveyance is constructed. Summaries of permitted heavy load destinations, gross vehicle weights, and number of axles were used in the Traffic Mix Analysis spreadsheets to determine the number of ESAL's permitted for energy exploration and production over each County road. Axle configurations outside the 3, 5, 6, and 7 axle columns were converted to an equivalent of one of those axle classes and marked with an asterisk in the date column. The figures calculated were not directly used in the other analyses. However, they can be used to obtain a rough estimate of how efficiently the County's permitting system is operating. 1 Using a inap marked with tiie 1 locations of wells drilled over the 1989 and 1990 time period and using a 50-50 split between [' those years allows estimates to be made on the percentage of heavy loads that were actually `y permitted and the percentage that appear to have avoided permitting. By using the number of Chen @Northern• Inc. Cling [Maui Fnrpnrrrq and Snirnlicl, 411 FWD test 101 19/ 90 Parameter File: WSLOPES Project: GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD Dept Fite/Test Site: 81130141 / CR 237_58 EAST SIDE COAL to CR 233 Stationing: 0.000 to 801.000 (Part 1) Layer no. 1 consists of Asphalt Layer No. 1 is 2 in thick Layer No. 2 is 10 in thick The modulus of layer 1 is estimated to be 250 ksi at 77 2F Design period: 5 years Baseline Traffic. Analysis Axle Load Type Number/lane/year 18 KIP EAL 4000 Season Temp(IF) Percent of Loads. 1 34.0 15 2 40.0 12 3 58.0 15 4 95.0 23 5 74.0 19 6 43,0 15 TESTING DATA: As Tested Structural Condition; Layer Moduli File: 8113014 Tested or Calculated Mid -mat Temp Range (2F): 34 to 34 Station E1,ksi E2,ksi E3,ksi CO N 0.000 768 23 15 19 -0.08 801.000 768 24 5 5 +0.00 Residual Trigger Recommended station Life Layer Mode Overtay(in) 0.000 2 2 func 0.5 801.000 '3 2 func 0.6 2.500 0.6 :Average: 0.707 0.1 :Std. Deviation: Number of calculated points: 2 • FUD test 10/ 19/ 90 Parameter File: WSLOPE5 Project: GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD Dept File/Test Site: 81130141 / CR 237 SO EAST SIDE COAL to CR 233 Stationing: 0.000 to 801.000 (Part 1) Layer no. 1 consists of Asphalt Layer No. 1 is 2 in thick Layer No. 2 is 10 in thick The modulus of Layer 1 is estimated to be 250 ksi at 77 IF Design period: 5 years East Side Coal Haut Trucks Added to Baseline Analysis Axle Load Type Number/lane/year 18 KIP EAL 26984 Season Temp(IF) Percent of Loads 1 34.0 15 2 40.0 12 3 58.0 15 4 95.0 23 5 74.0 19 6 43.0 15 TESTING DATA: As Tested Structural Condition; Layer Moduli File: 81130141 Tested or Calculated Mid -met Temp Range (!F): 34 to 34 Station E1,ksi E2,ksi E3,ksi CO N 0.000 768 23 15 19 -0.08 801.000 768 24 5 5 +0.00 Residual Trigger Recommended Station Life Layer Mode Overlay(in) 0.000 0 2 func 1.7 801.000 0 2 func 3.1 0.000 2.4 :Average: 0.000 1.0 :Std. Deviation: Number of calculated points: 2 JA 11111 • FWD test 10/ 19/ 90 Parameter Fite: WSLOPES Project: GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD Dept File/Test Site: 81130141 / CR 237 SB EAST SIDE COAL, to CR 233 Stationing: 802.000 to 2405.000 (Part 2) Layer no. 1 consists of Asphalt Layer No. 1 is 2 in thick Layer No. 2 is 8 in thick ,E The modulus of Layer 1 is estimated to be 250 ksi at 77 'F Design period: 5 years } Baseline Traffic Analysis Axle Load Type Number/lane/year 18 KIP EAI 14000 Season Temp('F) Percent of Loads 1 34.0 15 2 40.0 12 3 58.0 15 4 95.0 23 5 74.0 19 6 43.0 15 TESTING DATA: As Tested Structural Condition; Layer Moduli File: 8113014 Tested or Calculated Mid -mat Temp Range ('F): 32 to 32 Station El1ksi E2,ksi E3,ksi CO N 1603.000 856 33 17 23 -0.08 2400.000 856 19 11 15 -0.09 Residual Trigger Recommended Station Life Layer Mode Overlay(in) 1603.000 2 2 func 0.8 2400.000 0 2 func 1.6 1.000 1.2 :Average: 1.414 0.6 :Std. Deviation: Humber of caLculated points: 2 FWD test 10/ 19/ 90 Parameter File: WSLOPES Project: GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD Dept File/Test Site: 81130141 / CR 237 SB EAST SIDE COAL to CR 233 Stationing: 802.000 to 2400.000 (Part 2) Layer no. 1 consists of Asphalt Layer Wo. 1 is 2 in thick Layer No. 2 is 8 in thick The modulus of layer 1 is estimated to be 250 ksi at 77 gF Design period: 5 years • East Side Coat Raul Trucks Added to Baseline Analysis Axle Load Type Number/lane/year 18 KIP EAL 36984 Season Temp(AF) Percent of loads 1 34.0 15 2 40.0 12 3 58.0 15 4 95.0 23 5 .74.0 19 6 43.0 15 TESTING DATA: As Tested Structural. Condition; Layer Moduli File: 81130141 Tested or Calculated Mid -mat Temp Range (+F): 32 to 32 Station E1,ksi E2,ksi E3,ksi CO N 1603.000 856 33 17 23 -0.08 2400.000 856 19 11 15 -0.09 Residual Trigger Recommended Station Life Layer Mode Overlay(in) 1603.000 1 2 func 1.5 2400.000 0 2 func 2.6 0.500 2.0 :Average: 0.707 0.8 :Std. Deviation: Number of calculated points: 2 • 111311 rtM EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Sil t, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 March 30, 1993 Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning Department 109 Bth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Enclosed is an evaluation of the truck traffic on the haul route for Eastside Coal. The evaluation was performed using 1990 traffic figures provided by King Lloyd. The additional trucks, as a result of the coal being hauled by Eastside Coal, requires no additional pavement other than what is required for the existing traffic. If additional information is required or anyone has any questions concerning this report, they may contact Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. directly. I believe this report will answer King Lloyd's questions and we may proceed on with approval of the Special Use Application for the Eastside Mine. Sincerely, Stephen Sel General Man ger 55/11 Enclosure AASHTO `86 -- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 227 T 1990 traffic ******************************* E 18 Conversion *************** =*h::+:******* * Pavement Depth * Structural Number * Terminal Serviceability * Design Life 4.00 inches 2.00 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 2 2.00 1 5.00 1 3 10.00 1 24.00 1 500 1 242 1 8 1 4 12.00 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 12.00 2 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 34.00 2 34.00 2 31 1 0 0 0 0 Rigid E 18's Total = 53,146 Flexible E 18"s Total = 38,584 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number = 2.60 * Design E 18"s - 38,584 * Reliability = 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation J 0.44 * Resilient Modulus = 3,448.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t _= a (i) == ==== Cd === === t HBP 0/L 0.40 1.00 3.41 1.36 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.07 1.00 8.00 0.56 Total SN = 2.60 • 1 AASHTO '86 -- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 227 -- 1990 + mine traffic (1/3 80k, 2/3 68k) ******************************* E 18 Conversion *******: ***********>K* ;**** * Pavement Depth * Structural Number * Terminal Serviceability * Design Life 4.00 inches 2.64 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 4 12.00 1 2.00 1 528 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 2 2.00 1 12.00 2 5.00 1 268 1 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 3 10.00 1 34.00 2 24.00 1 8 1 34.00 2 33 1 952 3 626 3 Rigid E 18's Total = 59,451 Flexible E 18`s Total = 42,030 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number - 2.64 * Design E 18's = 42,030 * Reliability = 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation - 0.44 * Resilient Modulus = 3,448.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t a ( i ) _= ___= Cd =__ -_= t HBP 0/L 0.44 1.00 3.50 1.41 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.07 1.00 8.00 0.56 Total SN = 2.65 • • AASHTO '86 -- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 227 - 1990 A- mine traffic (100% 66k) ***= : ; K** * ** c**=k*** ** :: ** E 16 Conversion **************4** * Pavement Depth * Structural Number * Terminal Serviceability * Design Life 4.00 inches 2.50 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 4 12.00 1 2.00 1 528 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 2 2.00 1 12.00 2 5.00 1 242 1 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 3 10.00 1 28.00 2 24.00 1 8 1 28.00 2 33 1 1,052 3 1,052 3 Rigid E 18`s Total = 58,589 Flexible E 18's Total = 41,795 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Trider Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number = 2.64 * Design E 18"s - 41,795 * Reliability -. 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation = 0.44 * Resilient Modulus 3,448.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t ---- a (i) -- _-_= Cd =-- HBP 0/L 0.40 1.00 3.50 1.40 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.07 1.00 8.00 0.56 Total SN = 2.64 • AASHTO `86 --- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 233 - 1990 traffic **: ** = :; * ; :* kik ; :: ;**:*;f *** ;: ** ; E 18 Conversion ************************** * Pavement Depth * Structural Number * Terminal Serviceability * Design Life 4.00 inches 2.40 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/ (D, M , Y) Number Axle Load T Number,/ (D, M, Y ) 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 2 2.00 1 5.00 1 3 10.00 1 24.00 1 145 1 110 1 8 1 4 12.00 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 12.00 2 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 34.00 2 34.00 2 8 1 0 0 3 1 Rigid E 18's Total = 32,341 Flexible E 18's Total = 25,546 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number = 2.43 * Design E 18"s = 25,546 * Reliability = 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation = 0.44 * Resilient Modulus = 3,448.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t -= a (i) -= ---= Cd --- --= t HBP 0/L 0.40 1.00 2.63 1.05 EX. HBF 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.07 1.00 10.00 0.70 Tota]. SN = 2.43 AASHTO '86 ---- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 233 - 1990 + mine traffic (1/3 80k, 2/3 68k) ***.* k c************************* E 18 Conversion **********************kik** * Pavement Depth = 4.00 inches * Structural Number = 2.46 * Terminal Serviceability = 2.25 * Design Life = 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 2 2.00 1 5.00 1 3 10.00 1 24.00 1 4 12.00 1 173 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 12.00 2 136 1 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 34.00 2 8 1 34.00 2 10 1 952 3 1,376 3 Rigid E 18's Total = 36,620 Flexible E 18's Total = 28,085 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis =******** k********** * Structural Number = 2.47 * Design E 18's = 28,085 * Reliability = 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation 0.44 * Resilient Modulus = 3,448.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t a (i) _- _-_= Cd --- _= t =_ HSP 0/L 0.40 1.00 2.73 1.09 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.07 1.00 10.00 0.70 Total SN = 2.47 AASHTO `86 -- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 233 - 1990 mine traffic (100% 68k) ****************************** E 18 Conversion *****>k**** **** k** ; :** *** • Pavement Depth * Structural. Number * Terminal Serviceability * Design Life 4.00 inches 2.46 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load. T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 2 2.00 1 5.00 1 3 10.00 1 24.00 1 173 1. 136 1 8 1 4 12.00 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 12.00 2 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 28.00 2 28.00 2 10 1 1,052 3 1,802 3 Rigid E 18's Total = 33,269 Flexible E 18"s Total = 25,430 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number = 2.44 * Design E 18"s = 26,430 * Reliability - 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation = 0.44 * Resilient Modulus = 3,448.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t -= a (i) __ ---- Cd ==- HBP 0/L 0.40 1.00 2.67 1.07 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0,07 1.00 10.00 0.70 Total SN = 2.45 • • AASHTO '66 --- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 2337 south of mine - 1990 traffic ****** ; :**:i * : ***: *** * ; *** E 18 Conversion *************** * :** . *** * Pavement Depth - 4.00 inches * Structural Number = 2.84 * Terminal Serviceability f 2.25 * Design Life = 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 2 2.00 1 5.00 1 3 10.00 1 24.00 1 364 1 321 1 22 1 4 12.00 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 12.00 2 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 34.00 2 34.00 2 Rigid E 18's Total = 77,987 Flexible E 16's Total = key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number * Design E 18"s * Reliability * Overall Deviation * Resilient Modulus * Initial Serviceability * Terminal Serviceablity 2.82 62,346 85.00 percent 0.44 3,448.0 psi 4.00 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t == a ( i ) == ==== Cd === === t =__ HBP 0/L 0.40 1.00 3.45 1.38 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.09 1.00 8.00 0.76 Total SN = 2.82 15 1 0 0 7 1 62,346 • • AASHTO '86 -- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 237 south of mine - 1990 + mine traffic (1/3 80k, 2/3 68k) ******************************W E 18 Conversion ******* ;******** :****** :** * Pavement Depth * Structural Number * Terminal Serviceability * Design Life 4.00 inches 2.84 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2 3 10.00 1 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 5.00 1 24.00 392 1 347 1 22 1 4 12.00 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 12.00 2 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 34.00 2 34.00 2 Rigid E 18's Total = 79,438 Flexible E 18`s Total = key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year 17 1 952 3 2,376 3 ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number = 2.82 * Design E 18's - 63,310 * Reliability = 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation = 0.44 * Resilient Modulus = 3,448.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t ------ _= a (i) -_ ==_= Cd =_- -_= t =-- HBP 0/L 0.40 1.00 3.46 1.38 EX. HSP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.09 1.00 8.00 0.76 Total SN = 2.82 63,310 AASHTO '86 -- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 237 south of mine - 1990 t mine traffic (100% 68k) ******************************* E 18 Conversion **** ********************* * Pavement Depth * Structural Number *. Terminal Serviceability * Design Life 4.00 inches 2.75 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 392 1 2.00 1 5.00 1 347 1 3 10.00 1 24.00 1 22 1 4 12.00 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 12.00 2 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 28.00 2 28.00 2 17 1 1,052 3 2,802 3 Rigid E 18's Total = 5,537 Flexible E 18"s Total = 60,251 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number - 2.80 * Design E 18's - 60,251 * Reliability = 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation = 0.44 * Resilient Modulus - 3,448.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t == a (i) == ==== Cd === === t =-_ HBP 0/L 0.40 1.00 3.41 1.36 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.09 1.00 8.00 0.76 Total SN = 2.80 AASHT0 '86 -- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 237 at mine - 1990 traffic ****************k************** E 18 Conversion ************************** * Pavement Depth = 4.00 inches * Structural Number = 1.48 * Terminal Serviceability = 2.25 * Design Life = 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 4 12.00 1 2.00 1 106 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 2 2.00 1 12.00 2 5.00 1 120 1 12.00 2 3 10.00 1 24.00 1 6 12.00 1 34.00 2 5 1 34.00 2 Rigid E 18"s Total = 29,756 Flexible E 18`s Total key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number = 1.48 * Design E 18"s = 21,792 * Reliability = 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation = 0.44 * Resilient Modulus = 1.1,183.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t == a (i) == ==== Cd =__ __= t ==_ EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.11 1.00 10.00 1.10 Total SN = 1.78 7 1 00 5 1 21,792 AASHTO "86 ----- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 2.37 at mine - 1990 ± mine traffic (100% 68k) *******1********k** k****- **** E 18 Conversion ************************** * Pavement Depth * Structural Number * Terminal Serviceability. * Design Life 4.00 inches 1.46 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 4 12.00 1 2.00 1 134 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 2 2.00 1 12.00 2 5.00 1 146 1 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 3 10.00 1 28.00 2 24.00 1 5 1 28.00 2 9 1 1,052 3 2,302 3 Rigid E 18's Total = 27,611 Flexible E 18"s Total = 20,767 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number _ 1.47 * Design E 18'e = 20,767 * Reliability = 85.00 percent * Overall Deviation = 0.44 * Resilient Modulus = 11,183.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t __ a (i) --== Cd === HSP 0/L 0.40 1.00 0.01 0.00 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.11 1.00 10.00 1.10 Total SN = 1.78 AASHTO "86 -- Pavement Analysis Program (2) County Road 237 at mine - 1990 + mine traffic (1/3 8Ok, 2/3 68k) ****: *****************k******** E 18 Conver•sian ************************ * Pavement Depth * Structural Number * Terminal Serviceability * Design Life 4.00 inches 1.50 2.25 1.50 years Input Input Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) Number Axle Load T Number/(D,M,Y) 1 2.00 1 2 2.00 1 134 1 2.00 1 5.00 1 3 10.00 1 24.00 1 146 1 5 1 4 12.00 1 34.00 2 5 6.00 1 12.00 2 12.00 2 6 12.00 1 34.00 2 34.00 2 9 1 952 3 1,876 3 Rigid E 18"s Total = 32,621 Flexible E 18"s Total = 23,502 key: Axle Type: (1) Single (2) Tandem (3) Tridem Period: (1) Day (2) Month (3) Year ********************** Flexible Analysis ******************** * Structural Number = 1.50 * Design E 16's 23,502 * Reliability = 65.00 percent * 0}verall Deviation = 0.44 * Resilient Modulus - 11,183.0 psi * Initial Serviceability = 4.00 * Terminal Serviceablity = 2.25 Layer Layer Drainage Layer Number Coefficient Coefficient Thickness a(i)*Cd*t _= a (i) _= --== Cd =__ -== t HBP 0/L 0.40 1.00 0.01 0.00 EX. HBP 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.68 EX. ABC 0.11 1.00 10.00 1.10 Total SN = 1.78 • EASTSIDE COAL COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 161 Silt, Colorado 81652 (303) 876-2944 February 19, 1993 Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Board Members: Eastside Coal Company, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit to conduct underground coal mining operations in Section 19 of T5S R91W and Sections 23 and 24 in T5S R92W, Garfield County, Colorado, in compliance with the approved Colorado Mining and Reclamation Permit and Garfield County requirements. Eastside Coal Company originally permitted the mine for a production level of 200,000 tons per year in 1985. The term of that permit was five years. During that time Eastside Coal Company pursued a market for the coal outside of the local area, and is still attempting to develop that market. This special use Permit Application is for the life of the mine at a production level of 20,000 tons per year as long as the mine is operated in compliance with State, Federal, and County Performance Standards and conditions of the permits. The Special Use Permit Application has addressed items which are in the following Sections in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution dated January 2, 1979: 3.00 Zone District Regulations 3.02 Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density 3.02.03 Special Use 3.02.04 Minimum Lot Area 3.02.05 Maximum Lot Coverage 3.02.06 Minimum Setback 3.02.07 Maximum Height of Buildings 5.00 Supplementary Regulations 5.03 Conditional and Special Uses 5.03.07 Industrial Operations 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards 5.03.10 Approval of Special Use 5.03.11 Denial of Special Use 5.03.12 Access Routes • • page two of letter to Cty Comm February 19,1993 9.00 Administrative Procedures 9.01 Permit 9.01.01 Applications 9.03 Permit -Special Use 9.03.01 Application 9.03.02 Fee 9.03.05 Periodic Review The impact statements required by 5.03.07 are a part of and included with this Special Use Application. If you require additional copies of the impact statement for your review as per Section 5.03.07(1) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution adopted January 2, 1979, please let me know as we may expedite the review process. An anticipated coal contract requires the coal trucks tocross a bridge with a weight restriction of 34,000 lbs. Normally a truck of this size would gross 80,000 lbs. This is a net payload of 18 tons versus a net payload of 24 tons if the weight restrictions did not apply. Thus, for this contract, the gross weight of the double axle semi -trucks used to haul the coal will be 34 tons (68,000 lbs Due to the low coal production of this Special Use Permit Application, Eastside Coal requests to transport coal over the designated County Roads without any restrictions. Thank you for the consideration of the Special Use Permit Application. Eastside Coal Company wants to keep the lines of communication open to obtain approval of a special Use Permit. If your staff has any questions we would appreciate a call or letter and we will respond in a timely manner. Sincerely, Stephen Se General Manager SS/11 Enclosure COLORADO DEPARTMENT • 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Phone (303) 320-8333 Telefax Numbere: Main Building/Denver (303) 322-9076 Ptarmigan Place/Denver (303) 320-1529 First National Bank Building/Denver (303) 355-6559 Grand Junction Office (303) 248-7198 Pueblo Office (719) 543-8441 ROY ROMER Governor JOEL KOHN Interim Executive Director OFAHEALTH .� October 1, 1991 CERTIFIED: P 330 078 006 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Eastside Mine Attn: Stephen Self, General Manager P.O. Box 161 Silt, CO 81652 RE: Expiration and Renewal of General Coal Mining Permit CDPS Permit No. COG -850019 Garfield County To Whom It May Concern: The General Permit for Coal Mining facilities is due to expire on June 30, 1992. As stated in the "Regulations for the Discharge Permit System", all facilities covered under the general permit must reapply a minimum of 180 days before the general's expiration date. The need to reapply is independent of when the site was certified. Therefore if you intend to continue to discharge into state waters after June 30, 1992, a renewal permit application is required to be filed with the Water Quality Control Division by January 1, 1992. Enclosed is a modified application and a copy of the current certification. Please review the certification. If nothing has changed, please mark "no change" under item 5. If changes have occurred, please note them on the certification and return to us with the signed application. We hope that this procedure will shorten your time needed to complete the application and our time to recertify the facilities. In addition, the permit application has several questions which relate to stormwater. It is the Division's intent to include stormwater requirements as part of the renewal of the general. This again will eliminate the need for further applications requirements and amendments to the general permit itself. red ort recycled pryer 1 • Page 2 If you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please contact the Permits and Enforcement Section at (303) 331-4590. Sincerely, Louann Gaines Staff Assistant Permits and Enforcement Section WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION xc: Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency Dwain Watson, D.E., Field Support Section, WQCD Local health Department MS -3 Files LG/dc Enclosure 1558M Often President (303) 625-1235 Carl H. Bernklau 7880 C. R. 309 Rills, Colorado 81650 Woe -President Gregory lurrett 926 Blake Avenue Glenwood Hos., Co. 81601 Seo. Tr'eas. 14at®r Manager Nora Ruth Bernklau 7880 C. R. 309 Rifle, Colorado 51650 Attorney tausell George 8twsr s George, P. C. Post Office '8os 907 Rifle, Colorado 81650 • West Divide Water Conservancy Dist POST OFFICE BOX 1478 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650-1478 September 26, 1991 Mr. James S. %ochhead Leavenworth & Lochhead, P. C. Attorneys at Law P. 0. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Mr. Lochhead: SEP 27 1991 Baud of blricilors RE: Fastside Coal Company, Inc. Carl H. Bernklee 7880 C. R. 309 Rifle, Colorado 61650 Leonard Christensen 11834 C. R. 311 Silt, Colorado 81652 Gregory Durrett 926 Blake Avenue Glenwood Segs., Co. 81501 Joe Kautz, Jr. 6107 Highway 133 Carbondale, Colorado 61623 Kelly Coney 4745 C. R. 315 Silt, Colorado 81652 Enclosed please find receipt number 2221 for check number 3388 confirming Contract Number 910910 —ECC for Eastside Coal Company Inc. pending annexation into the West Divide Water Conservancy District. Please contact Russell George, Attorney for the District for details. There will be a charge of $250.00 for the annexation procedure. Copies of the completed contract will be submitted to the following: Colorado Water Resources, State Engineer Division No. 5 Water Resources Garfield County Planning Department Colorado River Water Conservation District Copies of contract and the included information have been sulmitted to Russell George, Attorney and Ed Currier, Engineer and have been approved by than as of September 26, 1991. The (included information with your contract) is not being submitted to the four entities listed above. It will be submitted should they require it. Thank you and good luck with your enterprise. Sincerely, Nora Ruth Bernklau Water Manager, W.D.W.C.D. Enclosures c/c Russell George State Div #5 Garfield Cty. CRWCD